Sunseri v. Puccia
97 Ill. App. 3d 488, 52 Ill. Dec. 716, 422 N.E.2d 925 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court should not direct a verdict when substantial factual disputes exist that require a jury to assess witness credibility and weigh conflicting evidence, especially regarding issues such as which party was the initial aggressor or whether an employee's intentional tort fell within the scope of employment.
Facts:
- On December 14, 1973, Samuel J. Sunseri was a patron at a restaurant and lounge owned by Patrick Puccia.
- The bartender, Larry Goeske, asked Sunseri for identification to verify his age.
- Sunseri complained to a friend about being 'carded,' which Goeske overheard, leading to a verbal argument between the two.
- As Sunseri stood up to leave, he made an obscene gesture towards Goeske.
- Goeske threatened Sunseri, came from behind the bar, grabbed him, and an altercation began inside the restaurant.
- The fight moved outside, where Puccia and several others watched without intervening.
- Goeske punched Sunseri, threw him to the ground, and repeatedly bit his ear, causing a severe injury.
- As a result of the injury, a portion of Sunseri's ear later required surgical amputation.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Samuel J. Sunseri filed a lawsuit against Defendant Patrick Puccia (restaurant owner) and Defendant Larry Goeske (bartender) in an Illinois trial court for personal injuries.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendants made a motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion for a directed verdict in favor of both defendants.
- Plaintiff Sunseri, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendants at the close of the plaintiff's case where there was conflicting testimony as to who initiated the altercation and whether the employee's use of force was excessive?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE HARTMAN
Yes, the trial court erred in directing a verdict. A directed verdict is only proper under the Pedrick standard when the evidence, viewed most favorably to the non-moving party, so overwhelmingly favors the moving party that no contrary verdict could ever stand. Here, substantial factual disputes existed which are the province of the jury to resolve. The trial court improperly usurped the jury's function by weighing the credibility of conflicting testimony from the plaintiff and another witness, Sikorski, regarding who initiated the fight. Even if the jury believed the plaintiff was the initial aggressor, it could still find that the force Goeske used was excessive, thereby negating the privilege of self-defense. Furthermore, whether Goeske's actions were within the scope of his employment for respondeat superior liability, or whether Puccia was negligent for failing to intervene, are questions of fact for the jury. The outrageousness of an employee's act is not conclusive evidence that it was outside the scope of employment, as the employee may have had a dual purpose of venting personal anger and furthering the employer's business.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for granting a directed verdict in Illinois, emphasizing that judges must not resolve conflicts in evidence or assess witness credibility, which are core functions of the jury. The case clarifies that even when a plaintiff's own witness provides contradictory testimony, the jury must be allowed to weigh it against the plaintiff's version. It also provides an important application of respondeat superior to intentional torts, establishing that an employee's extreme or outrageous conduct does not automatically take them outside the scope of employment, making this determination a question of fact for the jury.
