Landers v. Ghosh
96 Ill. Dec. 671, 143 Ill. App. 3d 94, 491 N.E.2d 950 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant lacks standing to appeal a directed verdict granted in favor of a co-defendant unless the appealing defendant has formally asserted a claim for contribution, such as a counterclaim or third-party complaint, against that co-defendant in the pending action.
Facts:
- On August 5, 1979, 22-year-old Charles Landers was shot in the neck and brought to Centreville Hospital's emergency room.
- Dr. Inawat, the emergency room physician, stabilized Landers and at 11:50 a.m. called Dr. Ghosh, the surgeon on call.
- Dr. Ghosh accepted Landers as a patient but informed the hospital he was 'tied up' at another hospital where he was about to perform surgery.
- Dr. Ghosh ordered Landers admitted to the ICU and called to check on his condition at 1:30 p.m.
- Dr. Ghosh arrived at Centreville at approximately 2:45 p.m., nearly three hours after the initial call.
- Upon observing Landers in respiratory distress, Dr. Ghosh performed a tracheotomy around 3:15 p.m.
- During or shortly after the procedure, Landers suffered a fatal hemorrhage from a severed carotid artery and jugular vein, and subsequently died.
Procedural Posture:
- Vicki Landers, on behalf of her deceased husband, sued Dr. Ghosh, Dr. Inawat, and Centreville Hospital for medical malpractice in a state trial court.
- Dr. Ghosh did not file a counterclaim or any other formal claim for contribution against his co-defendant, Centreville Hospital.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted Centreville Hospital's motion for a directed verdict, dismissing it from the case.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against Dr. Ghosh for $400,000 and returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Inawat.
- Dr. Ghosh, the appellant, appealed the judgment against him to the intermediate appellate court, challenging, among other things, the trial court's grant of a directed verdict for Centreville Hospital.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant in a multi-defendant tort case have standing to appeal a directed verdict granted in favor of a co-defendant when the appealing defendant has not filed a counterclaim for contribution against that co-defendant in the underlying action?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jones
No. A defendant lacks standing to challenge a directed verdict in favor of a co-defendant unless a claim for contribution was formally asserted against that co-defendant in the pending action. The general rule in Illinois is that only the plaintiff may appeal from a directed verdict in favor of a co-defendant. The Illinois Contribution Act allows a defendant to seek contribution from a joint tortfeasor, but it requires that such a claim be asserted via a counterclaim or third-party complaint within the pending action. Because Dr. Ghosh failed to file any claim for contribution against Centreville Hospital in the trial court, he forfeited his right to challenge the court's decision to dismiss the hospital from the case. The court relies on prior interpretations of the Contribution Act in cases like Tisoncik v. Szczepankiewicz and Laue v. Leifheit to support its conclusion that Dr. Ghosh lacks standing to appeal the directed verdict.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict procedural requirement for preserving contribution claims among co-defendants in Illinois. It clarifies that a defendant cannot passively rely on the plaintiff's case against a co-defendant and then challenge that co-defendant's dismissal on appeal. The ruling mandates that defendants must be proactive and formally plead any contribution claims during the trial phase, which serves judicial efficiency by ensuring all related claims are litigated in a single proceeding. This precedent effectively prevents defendants from using an appeal as a backdoor to assert a contribution claim they failed to raise at the proper time.
