Opinion ID: 2529268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Procedural History at the Close of the Evidence

Text: ¶ 74 At the close of the evidence, Ford renewed its motion for a directed verdict on all theories and grounds of recovery. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their strict liability count with prejudice and Ford moved for a mistrial claiming that substantial evidence was presented in this case under the guise that it was relevant in a strict liability claim. Ford particularly argued it was prejudiced by the postsale conduct introduced into evidence. The circuit court denied the motion for a mistrial and for a directed verdict. ¶ 75 Thereafter, during the instructions conference, the circuit court accepted plaintiffs' issues instruction, which provided for the fourth, yet unpleaded theory that Ford was negligent in failing to inform of the existence of the Trunk Pack and/or Trunk Pack Recommendations. With regard to the fourth theory, Ford again objected to any postsale duty to warn and argued that plaintiffs never pleaded a postsale duty to warn. Plaintiffs then sought leave to amend their pleadings to conform them to the proof adduced at trial, which the circuit court granted over Ford's objection. No pleading was tendered to the court until after judgment. ¶ 76 The circuit court gave a non-Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction (IPI) relying on the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 10 (1998), regarding a postsale duty to warn and another non-IPI instruction directing the jury that Ford could be liable for voluntarily undertaking to provide a post-sale warning to some customers but not to others. The circuit court additionally rejected Ford's proposed special interrogatories, all of which plaintiffs objected to on the basis of improper form. ¶ 77 After closing arguments, the jury returned a general verdict awarding Dora Mae Jablonski compensatory damages totaling $23.1 million and awarding punitive damages in the sum of $15 million. The jury also awarded compensatory damages to the estate in excess of $5 million. ¶ 78 Thereafter, over Ford's objections, between May and November 2005, plaintiffs were granted three opportunities to amend the pleadings to conform them to the proof at trial. The sixth amended complaint alleged that Ford was negligent for the additional reason that it failed to inform the plaintiffs of the existence of the Trunk Pack and/or trunk pack recommendations even though Ford had voluntarily undertaken to inform police consumers of the existence of the trunk pack and/or trunk pack recommendations. The trial court subsequently denied Ford's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively for a new trial. ¶ 79 On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the judgment. This court granted Ford's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010). In addition, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 345 (Ill. S.Ct. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010)), we allowed the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) to file a brief amicus curiae on behalf of plaintiffs. We also permitted Caterpillar, Inc., and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to file briefs as amici curiae on behalf of Ford.