Court Opinion

ID: 9526047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:10:54.939012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:16.956818
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The majority acknowledges that Harris v. Day (1983), 115 Ill. App. 3d 762, 451 N.E.2d 262, and Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. (1983), 114 Ill. App. 3d 703, 450 N.E.2d 1199, hold that refusing to give the jury a comparative negligence computational verdict form is not reversible error. These decisions stand for the proposition that if the jury is properly instructed on how to reduce the plaintiff’s damages due to any negligence on his part, it is not necessary for the jury to state findings on the percentages of fault or the total amount of plaintiff’s damages. This rule leads us to the conclusion that no reversal is required in the present case. Further, I cannot agree with the inference made by the majority that the verdict form tendered was in the nature of a special interrogatory. The verdict form tendered is clearly referred to as a modified general verdict form in IPI Civil 2d No. A45.06 (1981 Supp.). Under Hazelwood and Harris, failure to use such a verdict form is not reversible error. Finding no reversible error regarding this issue or any other issue raised by defendant, I would affirm.