Court Opinion

ID: 9705754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:19:26.749216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:15.020329
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GARCIA, specially concurring: I have a fundamental disagreement with the majority’s application of the two-issue rule. “Under the two-issue rule, a general verdict will not be disturbed on review if the case involved two or more causes of action or defenses and there was sufficient evidence to support at least one of the issues or defenses presented to the jury free from error. [Citations.]” 402 Ill. App. 3d at 406. The majority precedes the foregoing statement with a claim that the “[pjlaintiff has not established that she was prejudiced by the trial court’s error in tendering the second paragraph of IPI Civil 3d No. 12.04, because there existed other defense theories upon which the jury could have determined that Dr. Boffa was not liable for the decedent’s death.” 402 Ill. App. 3d at 406. It is an oversimplification to link the two-issue rule with the plaintiffs inability to show prejudice. The two-issue rule precludes review of a general verdict not because the plaintiff is unable to show prejudice based on an improper instruction. Rather, the jury’s general verdict is not subject to review because “the basis for the verdict” is unknowable in the absence of a special interrogatory. Strino v. Premier Healthcare Associates, P.C., 365 Ill. App. 3d 895, 904, 850 N.E.2d 221 (2006). Stated differently, the two-issue rule forecloses review of a general verdict in favor of a defendant because “[t]he general verdict *** creates a presumption that the jury found in favor of [the defendant] on every defense raised.” Lazenby v. Mark’s Construction, Inc., 236 Ill. 2d 83, 102, 923 N.E.2d 735 (2010). It is the absence of a special interrogatory answered by the jury to explain its general verdict for the defendant that forecloses any claim of prejudice arising from an allegedly erroneous instruction. Strino, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 904-05 (in the absence of a special interrogatory, a court of review cannot “determine whether the jury found in the defendant’s favor on the negligence issue[, rather than on contributory negligence]”). In the instant case, if the jury rendered its no-liability verdict because the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of Dr. Boffa, then the long-form proximate cause instruction the plaintiff complains of played no role in the jury’s decision in favor of the defendant doctor. Tabe v. Ausman, 388 Ill. App. 3d 398, 403, 902 N.E.2d 1153 (2009); see also Orzel v. Szewczyk, 391 Ill. App. 3d 283, 290, 908 N.E.2d 569 (2009). In Tabe, the defendant doctors argued that based on the two-issue rule, “if the jury determined that the defendant doctors did not deviate from the standard of care, then any error in giving the long-form proximate cause instruction ‘would have had no effect on the verdict.’ ” Tabe, 388 Ill. App. 3d at 402, quoting Strino, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 904-05. We agreed. In Orzel, the plaintiff claimed the jury was wrongly instructed on contributory negligence. However, we determined that the absence of a special interrogatory answered by the jury explaining the basis for its general verdict precluded our review of the issue: “When the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants in this case, it could have decided defendants were not liable because plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof regarding the underlying slip and fall negligence case. Or, the jury could have found plaintiff was more than 50% at fault for her injuries. We simply do not know what the jury decided here, other than that defendants were not liable. The jury may have reached a verdict in defendants’ favor without ever considering the issue of contributory negligence. Based on the general verdict returned, we cannot say the contributory negligence instruction made a difference in this case. [Citation.]” Orzel, 391 Ill. App. 3d at 290. When the two-issue rule applies, review of a jury’s general verdict is foreclosed in the absence of a special interrogatory explaining the basis for the verdict, much like review is foreclosed when the appealing party fails to submit a record that demonstrates the circuit court erred in its reasoning in ruling in favor of the opposing party. See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391, 459 N.E.2d 958 (1984) (in the absence of a transcript of the circuit court proceedings, “the appellate court had to presume that the trial court acted in conformity with the law and ruled properly after considering the motion”). When we affirm in the absence of a jury’s answer to a special interrogatory explaining its general verdict or in the absence of a transcript explaining the circuit court’s ruling, we do so on the basis that the applicable presumption precludes review, not on the basis that the appealing party failed to demonstrate prejudice, though the latter is necessarily true as well. Even if we were to set aside the presumption raised by the two-issue rule and directly consider the plaintiffs claims of prejudice, the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate substantial prejudice to warrant a new trial based on any error in instructing the jury with the second paragraphs of IPI Civil 3d Nos. 12.04 and 12.05. See Tabe, 388 Ill. App. 3d at 405-06 (“there is no precedent that holds the giving of the sole proximate cause instruction results in prejudice to a plaintiff’). I specially concur in the result.