Wassell v. Adams
865 F.2d 849 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will not overturn a jury's apportionment of fault under a comparative negligence standard unless the trial court's decision to uphold the verdict was an abuse of discretion, meaning no rational jury could have reached that conclusion based on the evidence.
Facts:
- Susan Wassell, age 21, traveled to a motel near the Great Lakes Naval Training Station to attend the basic training graduation of her fiancé, Michael.
- The motel, owned by Wilbur and Florena Adams, was located four blocks from a high-crime area, but the Adamses did not warn Wassell of the danger.
- After her fiancé returned to the base, Wassell was staying alone in her room at the Ron-Ric motel.
- At 1:00 a.m., Wassell was awakened by a knock on her door and, assuming it was her fiancé, she opened it without first looking through the peephole or otherwise identifying the person.
- The person was a stranger who asked for a glass of water; after Wassell let him in, he entered the bathroom.
- The man later emerged from the bathroom naked from the waist down, chased Wassell, dragged her back into the room, and repeatedly raped her over the course of an hour.
- The motel had experienced prior serious crimes, including a rape and a robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Wassell filed a diversity suit against Wilbur and Florena Adams in federal district court, alleging negligence.
- A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict that both parties were negligent.
- The jury assessed Wassell's total damages at $850,000 but apportioned fault as 97% to Wassell and 3% to the Adamses.
- Pursuant to Illinois's comparative negligence rule, the judge reduced the damage award to $25,500.
- Wassell moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing the jury's apportionment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The district court judge denied Wassell's motions.
- Wassell (appellant) appealed the denial of her post-trial motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the Adamses as appellees.
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 jury's apportionment of fault at 97% to the plaintiff and 3% to the defendant require a new trial where the verdict, while seemingly imbalanced, could be rationally based on a comparison of the relative costs to each party of avoiding the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner
No, the jury's apportionment of fault does not require a new trial. An appellate court is authorized to upset a jury's apportionment only if persuaded that the trial judge abused his discretion in determining that the verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence. While the appellate court might have apportioned fault differently, a rational basis for the jury's verdict can be constructed. Under a cost-benefit analysis of negligence, the jury could have concluded that the cost to Wassell of taking precautions (e.g., looking through the peephole) was minuscule compared to the cost to the Adamses of implementing effective security measures (e.g., hiring a guard for nearly $20,000 per year). Furthermore, a simple warning about the neighborhood may have been futile, as Wassell opened the door because she mistakenly believed her fiancé was outside. Since a rational interpretation of the evidence supports the verdict, the district judge's refusal to set it aside was not an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies the significant deference appellate courts grant to jury findings, particularly in the subjective and 'formless' inquiry of apportioning fault under comparative negligence. Judge Posner's application of a law and economics framework—comparing the relative costs of prevention for the plaintiff and defendant—provides a potential structure for rationalizing what might otherwise seem to be a sympathy verdict or an irrational outcome. The case serves as a crucial lesson on how a plaintiff's own negligence, even if seemingly minor in the face of catastrophic harm, can drastically reduce their recovery under a 'pure' comparative fault system.
Unlock the full brief for Wassell v. Adams