Court Opinion

ID: 9718265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:19:50.8687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:58.275465
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would reverse and remand for a new trial. Granting a directed verdict in a jury trial is an extraordinary step. A motion for directed verdict in a jury trial should only be granted when “all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors [the] movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand.” Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510, 229 N.E.2d 504, 513-14 (1967). A court should be very reluctant to take a case away from a jury and substitute its own view of the facts. In a bench trial, however, the court does not take the case away from the jury when it enters a directed judgment (735 ILCS 5/2 — 1110 (West 2006)). The court is the trier of fact in a bench trial. In a bench trial, a directed judgment at the close of all the evidence is no different from a decision on the evidence. A court conducting a bench trial also has the power to enter a directed judgment in favor of the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. 735 ILCS 5/2 — 1110 (West 2006). There are limitations, however, on that power. As with jury cases, the essential question is whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, i.e., whether he has presented some evidence on every element essential to his cause of action. If he has not, the trial court, in nonjury cases as in jury cases, may enter a directed judgment in the defendant’s favor. Kokinis v. Kotrich, 81 Ill. 2d 151, 154-55, 407 N.E.2d 43, 45 (1980). There is a further step in a nonjury case. In a bench trial, even if the plaintiff has presented some evidence on every element essential to his cause of action, the trial court may go on to weigh the plaintiffs evidence, including any evidence favorable to the defendant. “This weighing process may result in the negation of some of the evidence necessary to the plaintiffs prima facie case, in which event the court should grant the defendant’s motion and enter judgment in his favor. On the other hand, if sufficient evidence necessary to establish the plaintiffs prima facie case remains following the weighing process, the court should deny the defendant’s motion and proceed as if the motion had not been made.” Kokinis, 81 Ill. 2d at 155, 407 N.E.2d at 45. That weighing process, however, may not simply assume that the defendant would present evidence in his case that would negate the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Plaintiff established a prima facie case here. He presented some evidence on every element essential to his cause of action. Plaintiff presented evidence (1) there was a contract, (2) the practice under the contract was not to insist on strict compliance with date requirements, (3) he submitted his application within the time limits, (4) defendants asked for additional information and arbitrarily imposed a deadline not provided by the contract, (5) the information was eventually supplied, and (6) the procedure employed by defendants allowed defendants to terminate plaintiffs privileges by a technicality, thereby depriving plaintiff of the hearing to which he was entitled under the contract. Defendants have presented no evidence to negate plaintiffs evidence. The defense argument that some of the evidence establishing plaintiffs case has been negated incorrectly rests on evidence not presented, which the defense argues plaintiff should have presented: “The Plaintiff did not present any witness from the Medical Staff Office, the Credentials Committee!,] or anyone affiliated with Carle Foundation Hospital who was involved in the application process for medical staff membership and hospital privileges. No evidence was presented on how the renewal application would be processed or what was involved in any decision making, whether in general or specifically to these facts.” The argument that plaintiff must call defendants’ witnesses (who will then be recalled by defendants) does not promote judicial economy. The fact that the whole story has not been told does not entitle defendants to a directed judgment. All plaintiff had to do was establish a prima facie case. The fact that additional evidence might eventually be presented does not prevent the establishment of a prima facie case. The majority asserts plaintiffs argument that defendants acted in bad faith when they requested additional information the day before Thanksgiving is “pure speculation.” 386 Ill. App. 3d at 805. Plaintiff, however, has presented circumstantial evidence suggesting bad faith. Defendants have not presented any witness who would deny that motive. The trial court should have heard all the evidence before making its ruling.