Poole v. City of Rolling Meadows
167 Ill. 2d 41, 656 N.E.2d 768, 212 Ill. Dec. 171 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's ordinary contributory negligence may reduce damages awarded for a defendant's willful and wanton misconduct if that misconduct was reckless, but not if it was intentional.
Facts:
- On August 18, 1984, Officer Michael Conroy and three other police officers responded to a neighbor's call that an individual had been seen entering Steven Poole's mother's home through a second-floor window.
- While investigating the incident, Officer Conroy mistakenly shot Steven Poole.
- Steven Poole was coming out of the home's basement into a first-floor hallway when the shooting occurred.
- As a result of the shooting, Steven Poole sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Poole filed a two-count complaint in the circuit court of Cook County against Officer Michael Conroy and the City of Rolling Meadows, alleging willful and wanton misconduct under state law and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Defendants pled plaintiff's contributory negligence as an affirmative defense.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Conroy on the section 1983 claim.
- On the state-law claim for willful and wanton misconduct, the jury found in favor of Steven Poole, assessing compensatory damages of $199,164.81, but reduced the award by 75% due to Steven Poole's contributory negligence, entering judgment for $49,791.20.
- Steven Poole filed a post-trial motion challenging the reduction of damages, arguing that contributory negligence could not reduce damages for willful and wanton misconduct.
- The trial judge granted Steven Poole's motion, reinstating the full jury award of $199,164.81 and entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Defendants' post-trial motion challenging the modified judgment was denied.
- Defendants (appellants) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, which affirmed the trial judge's reinstatement of the full award of damages (253 Ill. App. 3d 154).
- Defendants (appellants) petitioned the Supreme Court of Illinois for leave to appeal, which was granted (145 Ill. 2d R. 315(a)).
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 plaintiff's ordinary contributory negligence reduce a damage award based on a defendant's willful and wanton misconduct if the misconduct was reckless rather than intentional?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Miller
Yes, a plaintiff's ordinary contributory negligence can reduce a damage award based on a defendant's willful and wanton misconduct if that misconduct was reckless, but not if it was intentional. The court reversed the appellate court's judgment. While Burke v. 12 Rothschild’s Liquor Mart, Inc. (1992) held that a plaintiff's negligence could not reduce damages for a defendant's willful and wanton misconduct due to the "qualitative distinction" between negligence and willful and wanton acts, the subsequent Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co. (1994) limited Burke's application to intentional willful and wanton misconduct. Ziarko recognized that "willful and wanton misconduct" is a hybrid term, sometimes closer to negligence (reckless) and sometimes closer to intentional wrongdoing. When willful and wanton conduct is merely reckless, comparing it to a plaintiff's contributory negligence is permissible for apportioning damages. However, if the willful and wanton conduct is intentional, comparative negligence principles do not apply. Since the jury in this case was given a general instruction on willful and wanton misconduct that encompassed both intentional and reckless forms, and no special interrogatory was used to distinguish between these, it is unclear what type of willful and wanton misconduct the defendants were found guilty of. Therefore, the trial court erred in reinstating the full verdict without this clarification, and a new trial is warranted consistent with the court's opinion.
Dissenting - Justice Nickels
No, liability for willful and wanton conduct should not be reduced by an injured party's ordinary negligence, regardless of whether the conduct was "reckless" or "intentional." Justice Nickels argued that Burke v. 12 Rothschild’s Liquor Mart, Inc. (1992) established a clear qualitative distinction between willful and wanton conduct and ordinary negligence, without making the distinction the majority now draws. The dissent contended that Ziarko v. Soo Line R.R. Co. (1994) did not create a binding precedent for this distinction, as the court was evenly divided on that point. Willful and wanton conduct, even if reckless, is still significantly more blameworthy and qualitatively different from ordinary negligence, embodying a "quasi-intent" as described by legal scholars like Prosser. Therefore, all forms of willful and wanton misconduct should preclude a reduction in damages based on a plaintiff's ordinary negligence, and the court should not depart from the reasoning of Burke. Justices Heiple and Harrison joined in this dissent.
Analysis:
This case significantly refined the application of comparative negligence in Illinois, creating a crucial distinction within the category of "willful and wanton misconduct." By allowing a plaintiff's ordinary negligence to reduce damages for reckless willful and wanton conduct but not intentional willful and wanton conduct, the court introduced a more nuanced approach to fault allocation. This ruling encourages trial courts to use specific jury instructions or special interrogatories to determine the nature of the defendant's willful and wanton misconduct, which has a direct impact on the availability of a comparative negligence defense. It aims to prevent defendants from escaping some liability for highly culpable (reckless) but non-intentional acts, while still preserving the strong deterrent against truly intentional wrongdoing.
