Court Opinion

ID: 9526693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:22:24.103912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:08.124888
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BARRY, specially concurring: This is the sort of case which, at first glance, would seem to call for a remand for a new .trial. Plaintiff has suffered tragic consequences from a relatively simple surgical procedure—the removal of his tonsils. However, I must concur with the majority. A careful review of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts. The law of Illinois is clear that the testimony of one doctor that he would have followed a different course of treatment is not sufficient to establish Dr. Kitt’s negligence as a matter of law. (Walski v. Tiesenga (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 249, 380 N.E.2d 801.) The plaintiff’s evidence was so limited; testimony of the medical experts and of the eyewitnesses was merely contradictory and unclear—thus creating credibility issues. The jury obviously concluded that plaintiff was the victim of an unusual medical accident, complicated by plaintiff’s unexpected loss of consciousness, and that Dr. Kitt and those assisting him undertook appropriate life-saving procedures in a proper manner under the circumstances. As a reviewing court, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. Although I concur in my colleagues’ decision to affirm the judgment in this case, I do not agree with all of the majority opinion. I disagree with the statement that the trial court erred in directing verdicts in favor of the Springfield Clinic as to its liability for punitive damages under plaintiffs’ theory of respondeat superior. The law of Illinois permits an award of punitive damages against a master or other principal because of an act by an agent where the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment, or in certain other circumstances which are not involved here. (See Restatement (Second) of Agency §217C (1958).) The rationale supporting vicarious liability for punitive damages in such cases rests primarily upon the deterrent effect to the corporate master, and, therefore, some complicity on the part of the master must be demonstrated such as when the superior officer orders, participates in, or ratifies outrageous conduct. (Tolle v. Interstate Systems Truck Lines, Inc. (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 771, 356 N.E.2d 625.) Most noteworthy are two Illinois cases, each involving an action against a bus driver and the company which employed him. The supreme court adopted the Restatement requirements for vicarious liability for punitive damages in Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 31, 330 N.E.2d 509. (Accord, Oakview New Lenox School District No. 122 v. Ford Motor Co. (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 194, 378 N.E.2d 544.) In both cases, the employer was held not hable for the negligent conduct of its employee. Here the evidence did indicate that Dr. Kitt gave orders and supervised certain employees, but his managerial functions related solely to the scheduling of his appointments and the management of the medical care of his own patients. The testimony of Dr. Rubenstein was uncontradicted that Dr. Kitt was an employee of the clinic; that he supervised only those other employees who assisted him; that Dr. Kitt did not participate in any decisions relating to the management of the clinic; that Dr. Kitt had been employed about 6 months earlier to work with Dr. Rubenstein, who was the managing partner for the ear, nose and throat department; and that even in Dr. Rubenstein’s absence, Dr. Kitt did not occupy a management position. I believe this evidence required the trial court to enter directed verdicts in favor of the clinic. Further, while the plaintiffs’ counsel’s examination of Dr. Kitt under section 60 was forceful and antagonistic, I do not agree with the majority’s statement that the atmosphere in the trial court was hostile to either party in general. Rather, my reading of the record indicates that, while the trial was hotly contested with all parties vigorously asserting their views, nevertheless the trial was conducted in a manner fair to all parties. I concur.