Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc.
| Docket Number | s. 1-21-0274,1-21-0282 (cons.) |
| Decision Date | 09 March 2022 |
| Citation | 2022 IL App (1st) 210274,205 N.E.3d 876,461 Ill.Dec. 788 |
| Parties | Lisa INMAN, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jesse Inman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOWE FREIGHTWAYS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael Resis, Andrew Seiber, and Ellen Green, of SmithAmundsen LLC, and Glenn F. Fencl and David M. Macksey, of Johnson & Bell Ltd., both of Chicago, for appellant.
Joseph A. Power Jr., Robert R. Thomas, and Sean M. Houlihan, of Power Rogers, LLP, of Chicago, and Michael T. Reagan, of Ottawa, for appellee.
¶ 1 This case returns to us after we remanded the case for a new trial following the initial appeal in Inman v. Howe Freightways, Inc. , 2019 IL App (1st) 172459, 432 Ill.Dec. 916, 130 N.E.3d 458. On remand, defendant Howe Freightways, Inc. (Howe), filed a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens , a motion to reopen discovery, and a motion to release the appeal bond. The circuit court denied all three motions. Thereafter, plaintiff Lisa Inman (plaintiff), individually and on behalf of her late husband Jesse Inman's estate (Inman), filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no need for a new trial because, based on the circumstances of the litigation, only Howe could be found liable upon retrial. The circuit court agreed and granted plaintiff summary judgment.
¶ 2 Howe now appeals the circuit court's orders and contends that the court erred in denying its motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens , its motion to reopen discovery, and its motion to release the appeal bond as well as erred in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Howe contends that the court erred in determining when postjudgment interest began to accrue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the circuit court's judgments.
¶ 5 In September 2011, James Langholf, a truck driver and employee of Howe, was driving his semi-tractor trailer west on Interstate 80 in Iowa when he began to have engine trouble. Langholf pulled over to the shoulder of the highway and turned off his vehicle. When he could not restart it, he called Howe, who told him to call the manufacturer of his engine. Eventually, Langholf called a towing company, which dispatched Inman and Daniel Walsh in separate tow trucks to tow Langholf's tractor and his trailer. When Inman and Walsh arrived at the scene, Inman parked in front of Langholf, and Walsh parked behind Langholf. Shortly thereafter, a semi-tractor trailer driven by Herbert Terrell, an employee of Hiner Transport, LLC (Hiner Transport), and Hiner Equipment, LLC (Hiner Equipment) (jointly referred to as Hiner entities), sideswiped Walsh's tow truck and collided with the back of Langholf's truck. The force of the collision pushed Langholf's truck into Inman's tow truck, pinning Inman between the trucks. As a result of the collision, all four men died.
¶ 6 In April 2012, plaintiff initiated the litigation and sued Howe; Julie Langholf, on behalf of her late husband James Langholf's estate; and Hiner Equipment. A few months later, Hiner Equipment filed a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and contended that Poweshiek County, Iowa, was a more convenient location for the litigation than Cook County. Howe did not file its own motion or join in on Hiner Equipment's motion. The motion judge denied Hiner Equipment's motion in large part because the parties to the litigation and the potential witnesses resided in multiple different states, such that Hiner Equipment failed to meet its burden to show that Poweshiek County was a more convenient forum.1
¶ 7 As the case proceeded, plaintiff added more defendants, including Hiner Transport, and multiple counterclaims were filed between the parties. Meanwhile, Julie Langholf, individually and on behalf of James Langholf's estate, countersued the Hiner entities for the wrongful death of her husband. But in September 2016, the motion judge entered an agreed dismissal order whereby Julie Langholf dismissed her wrongful death counterclaims against the Hiner entities. However, the dismissal order did not affect any counterclaims for contribution brought by Howe or Julie Langholf against the Hiner entities or any counterclaims for contribution brought by the Hiner entities against Howe and Julie Langholf.
¶ 8 During the course of litigation, the motion judge imposed sanctions against Howe for its failure to timely disclose training and maintenance records related to James Langholf and his truck. As a result, the motion judge deemed admitted three allegations in plaintiff's then-operative third amended complaint, which were that (1) Langholf failed to complete a required safety course following a previous, preventable accident, (2) Howe failed to ensure that Langholf complied with its internal policy of completing the safety course following his previous, preventable accident and prior to receiving another dispatch, and (3) Howe and Langholf failed to properly install or maintain his tractor. Later, the motion judge imposed another set of sanctions against Howe for its failure to preserve Langholf's tractor, including its engine and turbo. The motion judge deemed admitted the allegation in plaintiff's now fourth-amended complaint that Howe and Langholf failed to properly repair or maintain the tractor engine, including its turbo. The motion judge also deemed admitted the corresponding allegations from the third amended complaint—now in the fourth amended complaint—that were part of the initial sanctions imposed against Howe.
¶ 9 Before trial, plaintiff and the Hiner entities entered into a high-low settlement agreement. To this end, the Hiner entities filed a motion for a finding that the settlement agreement was negotiated in good faith pursuant to the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (Contribution Act) ( 740 ILCS 100/0.01 et seq. (West 2010)). Additionally, in relevant part, the Hiner entities sought to dismiss any and all counterclaims for contribution between them and Howe and to bar any and all future claims for contribution by any named or potential tortfeasor against them. Over Howe's objection, the motion judge (1) found that the settlement was negotiated in good faith, (2) ordered that any and all counterclaims for contribution between the Hiner entities and Howe be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Contribution Act, and (3) held that any and all future claims for contribution by any named or potential tortfeasor against the Hiner entities should be barred pursuant to the Contribution Act.
¶ 10 As the trial neared, the trial judge ruled on various motions in limine , including plaintiff's motion in limine No. 32 and Howe's motions in limine Nos. 35 and 37.2 Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 32 sought to bar eyewitness Franklin Green from testifying at trial that Terrell passed him on the highway before the accident and was not wearing a shirt, but after the accident, when Green went to render aid at the scene, he observed that Terrell was pinned in his seat wearing a shirt. The trial judge granted the motion and barred this testimony. Howe's motion in limine No. 35 sought, in part, to bar plaintiff's expert witness from offering an opinion that, despite the issues with the engine of Langholf's truck, Langholf could have reached the next highway exit. The trial judge denied the motion as it related to this testimony. Howe's motion in limine No. 37 sought to bar, in part, any assertion that a violation of its purported internal policy requiring a driver to complete a safety training course after a preventable accident but before receiving another dispatch established a standard of care that, if breached, constituted negligence. The trial judge denied the motion as it related to establishing a standard of care, relying on the motion judge's earlier sanctions order that deemed admitted the allegation regarding Howe's failure to ensure that Langholf complied with its internal policy of completing the safety training course.
¶ 11 In plaintiff's fourth amended complaint, which was filed approximately a week before the trial began, she did not name Julie Langholf, on behalf of James Langholf's estate, as a defendant. Nevertheless, on the day the trial began, the trial judge dismissed Julie Langholf and Hiner Equipment as defendants, pursuant to plaintiff's motion. As such, plaintiff's causes of action remained pending against only Howe and Hiner Transport. Though the Hiner entities had entered into the high-low settlement with plaintiff, only Hiner Transport was required to participate in the trial. Although no witnesses from any Hiner entity testified, Hiner Transport was represented by counsel throughout the trial and would appear on the jury's verdict form.
¶ 12 We provided a full recitation of the trial evidence in Inman , 2019 IL App (1st) 172459, ¶¶ 20-49, 432 Ill.Dec. 916, 130 N.E.3d 458. Following the trial, the jury returned a verdict, finding both Howe and Hiner Transport liable and allocating 57% of that liability to Howe and 43% of that liability to Hiner Transport. The jury awarded plaintiff $19,010,273 in total damages. In response to a special interrogatory that asked the jury if any act or omission of Howe proximately caused the injuries and death of Inman, the jury answered in the affirmative. On May 18, 2017, the trial judge subsequently entered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
¶ 13 Thereafter, Howe filed a posttrial motion primarily arguing that it was entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because plaintiff failed to establish that the acts and omissions alleged against it proximately caused Inman's injuries and death. In the alternative, Howe argued that it was entitled to a new trial on several grounds,...
To continue reading
Request your trial