Richardson v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 30 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | 79302,Nos. 79254,s. 79254 |
| Citation | 676 N.E.2d 621,175 Ill.2d 98,221 Ill.Dec. 818 |
| Parties | , 221 Ill.Dec. 818 Keva RICHARDSON et al., Appellees, v. Jeffrey CHAPMAN et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
O'Connor, Schiff & Myers, Chicago (Elliot R. Schiff, John W. Grove and Mark A. Smith, of counsel), for appellants Jeffrey Chapman, Tandem Transport, Inc. and Carrier Service Co. of Wisconsin, Inc.
Brydges, Riseborough, Peterson, Franke & Morris (Donald G. Peterson, Jay S. Nelson and Terry A. Fox, of counsel), and Lord, Bissell & Brook (Hugh C. Griffin, Rowe W. Snider, Stephanie A. Burris and R.R. McMahan, of counsel), Chicago, for appellant Rollins Leasing Corp.
Corboy & Demetrio, P.C., Chicago (Philip H. Corboy, Thomas A. Demetrio, Michael K. Demetrio and David A. Novoselsky, of counsel), for appellees.
Robert A. DeHaan and Richard P. Schweitzer, of Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger of Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Truck Renting & Leasing Association, Inc.
Paul R. Norman and M. Tess O'Brien-Heinzen, of Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field, Madison, Wisconsin, for amicus curiae Wisconsin Automobile & Truck Dealers Association.
The plaintiffs, Keva Richardson and Ann E. McGregor, were injured when the car in which they were riding was hit from behind by a truck driven by defendant Jeffrey Chapman in Highland Park. The plaintiffs brought the present action in the circuit court of Cook County against Chapman; his employer, Tandem Transport, Inc., successor to Carrier Service Company of Wisconsin, Inc. (Tandem/Carrier); and Rollins Leasing Corp., which had leased the truck in Wisconsin to Chapman's employer. Following a jury trial, the court entered judgment on verdicts in favor of Richardson and McGregor and against Tandem/Carrier and Chapman. The court later entered judgments against Rollins under the Wisconsin financial responsibility statute for the unsatisfied portions of the two awards. The court also permitted Rollins to obtain reimbursement for those expenses from Tandem/Carrier on a theory of contractual indemnity. A divided appellate court affirmed all the judgments against the defendants. Nos. 1-91-1736, 1-91-1737, 1-91-3868, 1-92-1221, 1-92-1442 cons. (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). In addition, the appellate court allowed Rollins' claims for reimbursement from Tandem/Carrier on theories of both contractual and implied indemnity. We granted the petitions for leave to appeal filed by Rollins and by Chapman and Tandem/Carrier (155 Ill.2d R. 315(a)) and consolidated the causes for purposes of oral argument and disposition.
The accident at issue here occurred in the early morning hours of November 26, 1987, at the intersection of Interstate 94 and Clavey Road in Highland Park. Plaintiff Keva Richardson was the driver of the car, and plaintiff Ann McGregor was a passenger in the vehicle. While stopped at a traffic light, their car was struck from behind by a semitrailer being driven by defendant Chapman. Richardson suffered extensive injuries as a result of the accident and was rendered quadriplegic. McGregor sustained only slight injuries in the accident and has returned to her normal activities. At trial, Richardson introduced extensive testimony concerning her injuries and the expenses she will likely incur in the future as a consequence of the accident. That testimony will be summarized later in this opinion.
The plaintiffs brought the present action against Chapman, Tandem/Carrier, and Rollins. The plaintiffs' second-amended complaint comprised three counts. Count I was against Rollins and alleged that the lessor was vicariously liable for Chapman's negligence under an agency theory. Count II, also against Rollins, alleged that the lessor was liable under the terms of the Wisconsin financial responsibility law. Count III, against Tandem/Carrier and Chapman, was based on common law negligence. Prior to trial, the judge granted Rollins' motion for summary judgment on count I, and that count is no longer at issue. Count II was severed prior to trial and was not submitted to the jury. The case proceeded to trial on count III alone.
At the close of evidence, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against Tandem/Carrier and Chapman on the question of liability. Determining only the plaintiffs' damages, the jury returned verdicts against Tandem/Carrier and Chapman and in favor of Richardson and McGregor in the amounts of $22,358,814 and $102,215, respectively. Tandem/Carrier and Chapman, through their insurance carrier, Home Indemnity Company, subsequently tendered $1 million to the plaintiffs in partial satisfaction of the judgments; of that sum, $990,000 was credited to the judgment in favor of Richardson, and $10,000 to the judgment in favor of McGregor. At a later hearing the trial court considered the plaintiffs' claims against Rollins under the Wisconsin financial responsibility statute, and the judge determined that Rollins was liable to the plaintiffs for the portions of the judgments unpaid by Tandem/Carrier and Chapman. The court therefore entered judgment against Rollins and in favor of Richardson for $21,368,814, and judgment against Rollins and in favor of McGregor for $92,215, representing the unsatisfied portions of their awards from Tandem/Carrier and Chapman. Rollins had filed a counterclaim against Tandem/Carrier seeking contractual indemnity, and counterclaims against Tandem/Carrier and Chapman seeking both implied indemnity and contribution. Following a hearing, the trial judge entered judgment in Rollins' favor on the count seeking contractual indemnity but denied the counts seeking contribution and implied indemnity. The judge also entered a finding for contractual indemnity against Chapman, the driver of the vehicle, though Rollins had not sought recovery from him under that theory.
The appellate court affirmed the judgments entered against Tandem/Carrier and Chapman on the plaintiffs' negligence claims against them, as well as the judgments entered against Rollins on the plaintiffs' statutory claims under the Wisconsin financial responsibility statute. The appellate court rejected the defendants' challenges to the amounts of damages awarded by the jury, and the court also rejected the defendants' arguments that certain trial errors had inflated the verdict returned in favor of Richardson. In addition, the appellate court held that the Wisconsin financial responsibility statute made Rollins liable to the plaintiffs for whatever portions of the judgments were not recoverable from Tandem/Carrier and Chapman. Finally, the appellate court ruled that Rollins could obtain reimbursement from Tandem/Carrier on theories of contractual and implied indemnity; the court did not believe, however, that an action for contribution would lie. The court did not address Rollins' claim against Chapman for implied indemnity.
One member of the appellate panel concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Cerda disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Wisconsin financial responsibility statute and would have limited the plaintiffs' recovery under that theory to the amount of the insurance policy filed by Rollins pursuant to the Wisconsin statute. Accordingly, he would also have vacated the judgment in favor of Rollins and against Tandem/Carrier on Rollins' counterclaim for indemnity. In addition, Justice Cerda would have reduced McGregor's award for pain and suffering to $50,000, bringing her total compensation to $52,215.
We allowed petitions for leave to appeal filed by Rollins and by Tandem/Carrier and Chapman. 155 Ill.2d R. 315(a). The Truck Renting and Leasing Association, Inc., and the Wisconsin Automobile & Truck Dealers Association were each granted leave to submit briefs as amici curiae in support of Rollins. 155 Ill.2d R. 345.
After we heard oral argument in this case, but before our opinion could be filed, the plaintiffs settled their actions against defendant Rollins for undisclosed amounts. Plaintiff Keva Richardson executed a release and discharge in favor of Rollins on October 1, 1996, and plaintiff Ann McGregor executed a release and discharge in favor of Rollins on October 2, 1996. The plaintiffs and Rollins then submitted to this court a stipulated order for the dismissal of a portion of the claims involved in this appeal. We allowed the order on November 7, 1996, dismissing with prejudice Rollins' appeal from the judgments against it and in favor of the plaintiffs. The question of Rollins' liability to the plaintiffs under the Wisconsin financial responsibility law is therefore no longer before us. The settlements do not affect the plaintiffs' actions against Chapman and Tandem/Carrier, or Rollins' action against Tandem/Carrier for contractual indemnity or its actions against Chapman and Tandem/Carrier for implied indemnity; Rollins may no longer seek contribution from the other defendants, however (see 740 ILCS 100/2(e) (West 1994)).
In that portion of the appeal still remaining, Chapman and Tandem/Carrier (defendants) first challenge the amounts of damages awarded to the plaintiffs. The defendants contend that certain errors in the testimony of the economist who appeared at trial in behalf of Keva Richardson inflated the verdict returned in her favor and, further, that the damages awarded by the jury to Richardson and McGregor are excessive.
In their initial challenge to the damages verdicts, the defendants complain of certain testimony introduced by plaintiff Richardson concerning the calculation of the present value of her future economic losses. The defendants maintain that Professor Charles Linke, who testified as Richardson's economist, improperly used non-neutral, actual figures in describing to the jury the calculation of present cash value. Richardson's life expectancy at the time of trial, in May 1990, was 54.5 years. Relying on information and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caletz ex rel. Estate of Colon v. Blackmon
...consider the credibility of witnesses and to determine an appropriate award of damages." Id., citing Richardson v. Chapman, 175 Ill.2d 98, 114, 676 N.E.2d 621, 628, 221 Ill.Dec. 818 (1997). The Supreme Court of Illinois has stated that "an award of damages will be deemed excessive if it fal......
-
Henley v. Amecher
...at 793.25 The trier-of-fact enjoys a certain degree of leeway in determining the cost of future medical expenses. Richardson v. Chapman, 676 N.E.2d 621, 628 (Ill. 1997). Accordingly, the cost of future medical treatment need not be proved with the same certainty required to prove the cost o......
-
Diaz v. Legat Architects, Inc.
...of the plaintiff's medical expenses, and the restrictions imposed on the plaintiff by the injuries." Richardson v. Chapman, 175 Ill.2d 98, 113-14, 221 Ill.Dec. 818, 676 N.E.2d 621 (1997). Even without the evidence as to the costs of future treatments, the medical evidence established that M......
-
Solis v. BASF Corp.
...BASF acknowledges that an expert may offer opinion testimony regarding the ultimate issue in a case. Richardson v. Chapman, 175 Ill.2d 98, 107, 221 Ill.Dec. 818, 676 N.E.2d 621 (1997). This testimony does not usurp the province of the jury because the jury is not required to accept the expe......
-
Table of Cases
...317 Ill App 3d 798, 739 NE2d 954 (2000), §18:10 Rerack v. Lally , 241 Ill App 3d 692, 609 NE2d 727 (1992), §8:140 Richardson v. Chapman , 175 Ill 2d 98, 676 NE2d 621 (1997), §§11:10, 11:130 Richard W. McCarthy Trust Dated September 2, 2004 v. Illinois Cas. Co. , 408 Ill App 3d 526, 946 NE2d......
-
Science, Opinion & Experts
...(1985) (citing with approval Fed. R. Evid. 704, but limiting lay opinion to confines of Fed. R. Evid. 701); see Richardson v. Chapman , 175 Ill 2d 98, 676 NE2d 621 (1997) (citing Freeding with approval). Expert testimony is required in other non-medical malpractice cases. People v. Armstron......