Richardson v. Chapman
676 N.E.2d 621 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An expert economist may use actual, case-specific figures rather than neutral figures when testifying about the present cash value of future damages. Furthermore, a party whose liability is purely vicarious or statutory may obtain implied indemnity from the actively negligent party.
Facts:
- Rollins Leasing Corp. leased a semitrailer truck to Tandem Transport, Inc., under an agreement containing an indemnity clause.
- On November 26, 1987, Jeffrey Chapman, an employee of Tandem Transport, Inc., was driving the leased truck in Highland Park, Illinois.
- While stopped at a traffic light, a car driven by Keva Richardson, in which Ann E. McGregor was a passenger, was struck from behind by the truck Chapman was driving.
- As a result of the collision, Keva Richardson suffered extensive injuries that rendered her a quadriplegic.
- Ann McGregor sustained less severe injuries in the accident, including a laceration on her forehead that left a slight scar.
Procedural Posture:
- Keva Richardson and Ann E. McGregor sued Jeffrey Chapman, Tandem Transport, Inc., and Rollins Leasing Corp. in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
- The trial court granted Rollins' motion for summary judgment on a common law agency count but severed a count against Rollins based on a Wisconsin statute.
- The negligence case against Chapman and Tandem/Carrier proceeded to a jury trial.
- The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of liability.
- The jury returned verdicts awarding damages of $22,358,814 to Richardson and $102,215 to McGregor against Chapman and Tandem/Carrier.
- Subsequently, the trial court entered judgment against Rollins for the unsatisfied portions of those awards under the Wisconsin financial responsibility statute.
- The trial court also entered judgment in favor of Rollins on its counterclaim for contractual indemnity against Tandem/Carrier.
- Rollins, Chapman, and Tandem/Carrier (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
- A divided appellate court affirmed all judgments against the defendants.
- Rollins, Chapman, and Tandem/Carrier (petitioners) were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 Illinois law require an expert economist, when testifying about the present cash value of future damages, to use neutral, hypothetical figures rather than actual figures specific to the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Miller
No. Illinois law no longer requires an expert economist to use neutral figures when testifying about the present cash value of future damages. The previous rule requiring neutral figures was based on the now-abolished prohibition against expert opinions on the ultimate issue in a case. Since experts may now provide opinions on the ultimate issue, the foundation for the neutral-figure requirement has been eliminated. The court also found that the jury's damage awards were excessive and reduced them by remittitur. Furthermore, the court held that Rollins Leasing Corp. was entitled to contractual indemnity from Tandem Transport based on their lease agreement, and to implied indemnity from both Tandem Transport and Chapman because Rollins' liability was purely statutory and not based on any fault of its own.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice McMorrow
This opinion concurs with the majority on all issues except for the reduction of the jury's damage awards. The dissent argues that the majority improperly usurped the jury's function by ordering a remittitur for the damages awarded to both Keva Richardson and Ann McGregor. For Richardson, the expert testimony on future medical costs represented a minimum baseline, and the jury's award reasonably accounted for additional, unquantified expenses like future hospitalizations. For McGregor, the jury was in the best position to assess the pain and suffering associated with her physical and psychological trauma, and reducing the award is an arbitrary substitution of the court's judgment for the jury's.
Analysis:
This case significantly modernizes Illinois evidence law by explicitly overruling the long-standing 'neutral figures' requirement for expert economic testimony, thereby allowing for more direct and potentially clearer presentations of future damages to a jury. The decision also clarifies the landscape of indemnity law in Illinois, affirming that the common law action for implied indemnity remains viable in cases of purely vicarious or statutory liability, even after the enactment of the Contribution Act. Finally, the court's use of remittitur in a catastrophic injury case underscores the judiciary's role in policing the boundaries of jury awards it deems excessive, even when based on substantial evidence of severe harm.
