DiPaolo v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 02 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 56483,56483 |
| Citation | 15 Ill.App.3d 735,305 N.E.2d 194 |
| Parties | Mike DiPAOLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ruth JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Sidney Z. Karasik, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant; Gary E. Dienstag, Stuart N. Litwin, Chicago, of counsel.
Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, for defendant-appellee; Francis D. Morrissey, Thomas F. Tobin, Peter J. Mone, Chicago, of counsel.
Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for the injuries he sustained as a result of being struck by defendant's automobile. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant and the trial court entered judgment thereon. Plaintiff appeals contending: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his post-trial motion, (2) that the trial court erred in permitting testimony and comments regarding plaintiff's financial wealth, and (3) that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding a motorist's duty of care toward workmen on a roadway.
At trial, plaintiff testified regarding his annual income and regarding his contracts with the City of Des Plaines for the construction of water lines, including one along the east side of Mt. Prospect Road, a two-lane north-south blacktopped road with a painted center line and gravel shoulders. These contracts required plaintiff to correct defects and to work at night only with proper warning devices and with the permission of the City Engineer. Although on direct examination plaintiff answered in terms of money a question regarding the amount of work which had been completed, on cross-examination defense counsel twice mentioned the total value of the contracts to plaintiff's company, $123,000. Plaintiff's objection to the first mention of this amount was overruled, but he did not object to its second mention.
On Saturday, April 3, 1965, following the discovery of a leak in the water line along the east side of Mt. Prospect Road, plaintiff and his crew placed several barricades north of the construction site and proceeded to repair the leak by digging a trench along the roadway, placing he dirt in a large pile in the northbound lane of the road, blocking that lane but not extending into the southbound lane. As it became dark and repairs on the pipe were completed, plaintiff had the lights of two trucks facing north on the west shoulder of the road turned on but set out no flares or smudge pots. One of plaintiff's employees then began clearing the roadway with an end loader with plaintiff directing southbound traffic using a red flag and flashlight. Plaintiff would stop the traffic about 150 feet north of the construction site, then let it proceed when another employee directing northbound traffic signaled, and then would walk back toward the construction site to make sure the end loader did not enter the southbound lane while traffic was passing. At about 7:00 P.M., after directing traffic for about an hour, plaintiff was walking in the east lane of the road back toward the construction site, when he heard someone shout a warning, but before he could respond, he was struck from behind by an automobile. He did not testify whether or not he was conscious after the accident. On cross-examination prior inconsistent statements were admitted as impeachment.
Plaintiff's brother-in-law, Mike Nero, who at the time of the accident was operating the end loader with his back toward the southbound lane, testified and essentially agreed with plaintiff. He further testified that the car had been traveling at 50 or 55 miles per hour although it took only about 75 feet for it to stop after hitting plaintiff and that after being hit plaintiff landed in the middle of the east lane on the south side of the pile of dirt.
Defendant Ruth Johnson testified that she was driving her mother to O'Hare airport about 7:00 P.M. on April 3, 1965, along Mt. Prospect Road which has a speed limit of between 35 and 45 miles per hour, that it was dark and she had her headlights on low beam, and that she noticed two sets of stationary lights. She slowed her car from between 30 and 35 miles per hour to between 20 and 30 miles per hour. She saw the pile of dirt and realized that construction was in progress but saw no one in her path. As she was passing the dirt, she heard a thud, stopped the car, and saw plaintiff lying unconscious on the ground. She testified that at all times her car had stayed in the west lane of the road.
The testimony of Mrs. Bernard Moody, defendant's mother essentially agreed with her daughter's. She testified that she did not become aware of anything unusual until she heard a thump.
Officer William Walters, the investigating police officer, testified that he proceeded south on Mt. Prospect Road to investigate a reported accident. Although he saw two sets of lights facing him, he noticed no barricades or flares. As he reached the scene, he observed an end loader parked in the east lane facing south almost straddling the center line and observed plaintiff lying on the road to the left, south of the pile of dirt. Plaintiff told him that at the time of the accident he was not standing on the mound of dirt but had been directing traffic on the other side of the end loader. Later on rebuttal, John Pierce, an investigator for plaintiff's attorney, testified that the officer had told him the previous night that he had been unable to speak to plaintiff at the scene.
The record indicates that during final argument defense counsel, without objection, mentioned the incorrect amount of $213,000 as the value of the contracts with the City. The record also discloses that the court gave I.P.I. Instruction 70.03 relating to the respective rights-of-way of pedestrians and motorists, and a notation appearing on the instruction shows that it was given over plaintiff's objection. It did not give plaintiff's requested I.P.I. Instruction 71.04 relating to the protection of workmen on a roadway. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant and the trial court entered judgment thereon. Plaintiff then filed a post trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Although plaintiff's complaint alleged that he 'was a pedestrian standing lawfully on Mount Prospect Road * * * in the course of his employment * * *' and defendant's answer denied that plaintiff 'was a pedestrian insofar as this term connotes a legal status * * *,' plaintiff alleged in his motion that I.P.I. Instruction 70.03 given by the court was error 'for the reason that there was no evidence tending to show that the Plaintiff was a pedestrian crossing a roadway.' The court denied the post trial motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stathis v. Geldermann, Inc.
...a party's wealth or poverty is immaterial and improper when it appeals to the prejudice of the jury. Di Paolo v. Johnson, 15 Ill.App.3d 735, 739, 305 N.E.2d 194 (1973). Gus argues that the evidence would refute defendants' assertion that he sued them because they had "deep pockets." Here, G......
-
Grinyov v. 303 Taxi, L.L.C.
...added.) Stathis v. Geldermann , 295 Ill.App.3d 844, 862, 229 Ill.Dec. 809, 692 N.E.2d 798 (1998) (citing DiPaolo v. Johnson , 15 Ill.App.3d 735, 739, 305 N.E.2d 194 (1973) ). But, evidence regarding a party's financial circumstances may be admitted if relevant to an issue. McHale , 2015 IL ......
-
Lorenz v. Siano
...recoverable are compensatory in nature, the financial standing of the parties is irrelevant and prejudicial. Dipaolo v. Johnson (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 735, 305 N.E.2d 194; Hedge v. Midwest Contractors Equipment Co. (1964), 53 Ill.App.2d 365, 202 N.E.2d Defense counsel's inquiries of Siano as......
-
Pagel v. Yates
...appeals to the prejudice of the jury for presumably the jury will favor those least able to bear the loss. (DiPaolo v. Johnson (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 735, 739, 305 N.E.2d 194, 197.) If undue emphasis is placed on the irrelevant evidence, or if the jury's verdict is affected by it, then rever......