Court Opinion

ID: 9859470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 21:52:26.905031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:49:23.038247
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RIZZI, specially concurring: I agree with the result reached by the majority, but I do not agree with the majority’s sub silentio approval of what is stated in Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction, Civil, No. 31.01 (2d ed. 1971) (hereinafter IPI Civil 2d), and I do not agree with the majority’s analysis regarding presumptions. I believe that the statement in IPI Civil 2d No. 31.01, that the “law recognizes a presumption that the lineal next of kin have sustained some substantial pecuniary loss by reason of the death” is wrong because it confuses a presumption with an inference. The majority perpetuates the confusion. Although the word “presumption” appears in IPI Civil 2d No. 31.01, the instruction in its application actually has reference to an inference rather than a presumption. In other words, the law recognizes an inference, rather than a presumption, that the lineal next of kin have sustained some substantial pecuniary loss by reason of one’s death. This distinction is important because a presumption does not operate in the same manner as an inference operates, and the two principles should not be treated interchangeably. Presumptions in the law are created by both the legislature and the judiciary. (J. Kaplan, and J. Waltz, Cases and Materials on Evidence 752 (5th ed. 1984).) A presumption means that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the trier of fact is compelled to suppose a fact to be true without proof.1 During a trial in which a presumption may or may not be applicable, if the proponent of the presumption does not introduce sufficient facts to support the existence of the presumption in the particular case, then the presumption is not applicable. However, if the proponent of the presumption introduces sufficient facts to support the existence of the presumption in the particular case, then the burden of going forward with the evidence on that issue shifts to the party opposing the presumption.2 (Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63, 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77.) Thus, the application of a presumption in a given case is a question of law which must be decided in the first instance by the trial court. See In re Estate of Deskins (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 942, 948-50, 471 N.E.2d 1018, 1023-24. If the trial court decides that the proponent of the presumption has introduced sufficient facts to support the existence of the presumption, then the presumption continues to exist until the end of all the evidence at trial. At that time, the trial court must make a ruling. If the trial court rules that the party opposing the presumption has put in sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to conclude that the presumed fact did not occur in the particular case, then the presumption is destroyed and the presumption no longer exists in the case.3 The same result is reached if the party opposing the presumption has by his cross-examination so destroyed the integrity of the facts introduced to support the existence of the presumption that a trier of fact could conclude that the presumed fact did not occur in the particular case. If the trial court rules that the presumption has been destroyed, then the jury should not be instructed regarding the presumption because the presumption no longer exists in the case. Thus, the jury will have to decide whether the party with the burden of persuasion has proved the disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence; the jury will not be permitted to rely upon a presumption. See Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63, 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77. If, at the end of all the evidence at trial, the trial court rules that the party opposing the presumption has not put in sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to be able to conclude that the presumed fact did not exist in the case at trial (i.e., the party opposing the presumption has not destroyed the presumption), then the presumption remains in the case, and the party with the presumption is entitled to a directed verdict or a directed finding on that presumed fact.4 Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 463, 448 N.E.2d 872, 877. As can be seen from the analysis that I have made, there should be no jury instructions in civil cases that speak of presumptions. (See 95 Ill. 2d 452, 461, 448 N.E.2d 872, 876; 9 Wigmore, Evidence sec. 2491 (Chadbourn rev. 1981).) Rather, where the jury is permitted to reach certain conclusions because of the existence of particular facts in the case, jury instructions should speak of inferences, not presumptions. An inference is a factual conclusion that is permitted to be reached by considering other facts in the course of common reasoning and logic. (E. Cleary and M. Graham, Illinois Evidence sec. 302.2 (4th ed. 1984).) In order for an inference to be permitted, it must be said with substantial assurance that the inferred fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved facts on which it is made to depend. See generally Leary v. United States (1969), 395 U.S. 6, 36, 23 L. Ed. 2d 57, 82, 89 S. Ct. 1532, 1548. An inference operates differently from a presumption because an inference does not vanish as a result of the introduction of contrary evidence that is sufficient for a trier of fact to conclude that the supposed fact did not occur in the case. Also, unlike the effect of a presumption, a trier of fact is not compelled to accept an inference. Rather, the trier of fact will consider the inference and the evidence opposing the inference with all the other evidence in the case. (Imig v. Beck (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 18, 28 (distinguishing the application of an inference as opposed to the application of a presumption in a res ipsa loquitur case); Dyback v. Weber (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 232, 242; G.C. Lilly, An Introduction to the Law of Evidence 48 (1978).) Of course, if the party opposing the inference offers no evidence to overcome a prima facie case that may be made by the reliance upon an inference, he runs the risk that the trier of fact may find against him on the issue. In addition, in exceptional cases, the party relying upon an inference may be entitled to a directed verdict because the unrebutted inference is so strong that all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent of the inference, so overwhelmingly favors the proponent that no verdict in favor of the opponent could ever stand. Imig v. Beck (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 18, 29. For the reasons that I have stated, it is plain that a presumption and an inference should never be used interchangeably. With respect to the pertinent part of IPI Civil 2d No. 30.01, the law recognizes an inference, rather than a presumption, that the lineal next of kin have sustained some substantial pecuniary loss by reason of one’s death. This conclusion is illustrated by the result reached in Flynn v. Vancil (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 236, 242 N.E.2d 237, where the court upheld a verdict of liability but no damages in a wrongful-death claim by the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of his two-week-old child. If there is a presumption, as opposed to an inference, that the lineal next of kin have sustained some substantial pecuniary loss by reason of one’s death, then the jury in Flynn would have been compelled to have found some substantial pecuniary loss and awarded the plaintiff damages. Franciscan Sisters expounds on the meaning and operation of presumptions. The court stated: “ ‘[O]nce evidence opposing the presumption comes into the case, the presumption ceases to operate, and the issue is determined on the basis of the evidence adduced at trial as if no presumption had ever existed. (See 1 Jones, Evidence sec. 3:8 (6th ed. 1972).) The burden of proof thus does not shift but remains with the party who initially had the benefit of the presumption. *** As stated in Jones on Evidence, “since the presumption loses its force when evidence is introduced against it, it would naturally follow that no mention of the presumption would be made in the instructions to the jury, and the issue is submitted without any knowledge on the part of the jury of the special legal significance of the basic facts from which the presumption originally arose.” 1 Jones, Evidence sec. 3:9 at 146 (6th ed. 1972). * * * The prevailing theory regarding presumptions that Illinois follows *** is Thayer’s bursting-bubble hypothesis: once evidence is introduced contrary to the presumption, the bubble bursts and the presumption vanishes. (McCormick, Evidence sec. 345, at 821 (2d ed. 1972); see Coal Creek Drainage & Levee District v. Sanitary District (1929), 336 Ill. 11.) It is consistent with the Thayer approach that the party producing evidence to rebut the presumption must come forward with evidence that is “sufficient to support a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact.” (Graham, Presumptions in Civil Cases in Illinois: Do They Exist? 1977 S. Ill. U. L. J. 1, 24.) If Dean [the defendant] had offered no evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence, the plaintiff would have been entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63, 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77. In the present case, the majority makes the mistake of concluding that there is a rebuttable presumption, as opposed to an irrebuttable presumption, involved here. The fact is that every presumption is a rebuttable presumption in the sense that the party opposing the existence of the presumption can offer evidence to rebut the presumption. A so-called irrebuttable presumption is not a presumption at all. Rather, it is actually a substantive rule of law. (G. C. Lilly, An Introduction to the Law of Evidence, 50 (1978); E. Cleary & M. Graham, Illinois Evidence sec. 302.3, at 75 (4th ed. 1984).) For example, although it is sometimes stated that there is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of seven years is not responsible for his acts, there actually is no presumption involved. Instead, it is a substantive rule of law that a child under the age of seven years is not responsible for his acts. (G. C. Lilly, An Introduction to the Law of Evidence, 50 (1978); see IPI Civil 2d No. 11.03. Plainly, the only true presumptions that exist are those in which the party opposing the existence of the presumption can offer evidence to rebut the presumption. Thus, a so-called irrebuttable presumption is a misnomer. I therefore feel that the reference to a presumption in IPI Civil 2d No. 30.01 is wrong. The instruction should be referring to an inference when it uses the term presumption. The fact that there is an inference, as opposed to a presumption, that the lineal next of kin have sustained some substantial pecuniary loss by reason of one’s death is the reason that a jury may accept or reject the supposed fact. Although I believe that IPI Civil 2d No. 30.01 should not have been given to the jury in this case for the reasons that I have stated, I also believe that no prejudicial error was committed because the plaintiff established without refutation an actual substantial pecuniary loss of society which sustains the verdict. Since I agree with all other aspects of the majority opinion, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.  This opinion is limited to a consideration of presumptions in civil cases only. Presumptions in criminal cases have special considerations that are not relevant here. See generally Sandstrom v. Montana (1979), 442 U.S. 510, 61 L. Ed. 2d. 39, 99 S. Ct. 2450; County Court of Ulster County v. Allen (1979), 442 U.S. 140, 60 L. Ed. 2d 777, 99 S. Ct. 2213; People v. Housby (1981), 84 Ill. 2d. 415, 420 N.E.2d 151; E. Cleary and M. Graham, Illinois Evidence secs. 304.1 through 304.3 (4th ed. 1984).   It should be noted that the burden of persuasion does not shift when dealing with presumptions. Rather, the burden of persuasion remains with the party who initially had the benefit of the presumption. (Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 460-63, 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77; E. Cleary and M. Graham, Illinois Evidence sec. 301.6 (4th ed. 1984); D. Louisell, J. Kaplan, and J. Waltz, Evidence 754 (4th ed. 1981).) In this regard, the Federal Rules of Evidence provide that “a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.” Fed. R. Evid. 301.   There are some presumptions that are not destroyed unless the trial court rules that the party opposing the presumption has put in sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to conclude that the presumed fact did not occur by clear and convincing evidence. These presumptions are called strong presumptions. Generally, strong presumptions are presumptions that exist because of a strong public policy requirement, such as the existence of a presumption of undue influence if an attorney drafts a will and the attorney is given a substantial bequest under the will. Franciscan Sisters Health Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 463-465, 448 N.E.2d 872, 875-77; E. Cleary and M. Graham, Illinois Evidence sec. 302.1 (4th ed. 1984).   A presumption is not evidence and cannot be treated as evidence. It cannot be weighed in the scale against evidence. Presumptions are never indulged in against established facts. They are indulged in only to supply the place of facts. It is for these reasons that as soon as evidence is produced which is contrary to the presumption which arose before the contrary proof was offered the presumption vanishes entirely. Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. v. Dean (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 452, 461, 448 N.E. 2d 872, 876; Diederich v. Walters (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 95, 102, 357 N.E.2d 1128, 1131; Coal Creek Drainage & Levee District v. Sanitary District (1929), 336 Ill. 11, 31.