Schwartz v. Swan

Illinois Appellate Court — Fifth District
63 Ill. App. 2d 148, 211 N.E.2d 122 (1965)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a plaintiff suffers injuries in separate accidents caused by different and unrelated tortfeasors, the defendants may be joined in a single action if the plaintiff is unable to apportion the injuries between the occurrences, as the extent of the injuries attributable to each defendant becomes a common question of fact.

Facts:

On August 13, 1960, Dorothy Schwartz was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Adelia Schwartz that was stopped at a stop sign.
A collision occurred between vehicles driven by Yada Abernathy and Lawrence Allen Bray, causing Abernathy’s vehicle to strike the car in which Dorothy Schwartz was a passenger.
As a result of this first incident, Dorothy Schwartz suffered injuries to her head, neck, and shoulders.
Ten days later, on August 23, 1960, Dorothy Schwartz was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, Clarence Schwartz.
That vehicle was struck by a car driven by Mary J. Polivick.
This second accident caused further injury to Dorothy Schwartz's head, neck, shoulders, arms, and back, and aggravated the injuries she sustained in the first accident.
Dorothy Schwartz alleged that she was unable to determine what portion of her total injuries resulted from the first accident versus the second.

Procedural Posture:

Dorothy Schwartz and her husband, Clarence Schwartz, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County against Yada Abernathy, Lawrence Bray, and Mary Polivick, the drivers from two separate accidents.
The defendants filed separate motions to sever the claims related to the first accident from the claims related to the second accident.
The trial court granted the motions and ordered the causes of action severed into two separate cases.
The plaintiffs' initial attempt to appeal the severance order was dismissed by the appellate court on the grounds that it was not a final, appealable order.
Subsequently, a separate case filed by Adelia Schwartz (the driver in the first accident) was consolidated with Dorothy Schwartz's severed case against the defendants from the first accident.
The consolidated case concerning only the first accident proceeded to a jury trial.
The jury returned verdicts in favor of all defendants and against all plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs appealed the resulting final judgment to the Appellate 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 a trial court abuse its discretion by severing claims against defendants from two separate and distinct accidents when the plaintiff alleges that she is unable to determine to what extent each accident caused or contributed to her indivisible injuries?

Opinions:

Majority - Goldenhersh, J.

Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a severance of claims where it would be prejudicial to the plaintiff. Joinder of defendants is authorized under the Civil Practice Act where liability arises out of a series of transactions and there is a common question of fact. In this case, the two accidents constitute a 'series of transactions,' and the common question of fact is the extent to which each collision contributed to the plaintiff's injuries, which she is unable to apportion. Severance is prejudicial because it would force the plaintiff to pursue two separate lawsuits where each set of defendants could argue that the other accident was the source of the injuries, potentially leaving an innocent plaintiff without a remedy. The court should not grant severance without evidence, obtainable through discovery, showing that the plaintiff's injuries can be apportioned between the two events with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The argument that a jury would be confused by a joint trial is unpersuasive, as juries regularly decide far more complex matters.

Analysis:

This case establishes a significant procedural rule in Illinois favoring joinder in cases of successive, independent torts that produce an indivisible or un-apportionable injury. The decision prioritizes preventing prejudice to an innocent plaintiff over the potential inconvenience or strategic disadvantage to the defendants. It effectively shifts the burden of untangling the causation of damages from the plaintiff to the defendants, forcing them to litigate liability and apportionment in a single proceeding. This approach protects plaintiffs from the 'empty chair' defense, where each defendant blames an absent party, and promotes judicial economy by resolving related claims in one trial.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Schwartz v. Swan (1965)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature