The Illinois Supreme Court issued a recent decision highlighting the dangers of commencing an appeal following a jury verdict without first filing a post-trial motion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that a litigant is required to file a post-trial motion under 735 ILCS 5/2-1202 in order to challenge a jury’s verdict on one claim even though the trial court entered a partial directed verdict on a separate claim in the case.
In Crim by Crim v. Dietrich, the Crims filed a medical malpractice action against their doctor for claims relating to the birth of their son. The case proceeded to trial on both of plaintiffs’ claims against the doctor for her (1) failure to obtain informed consent to perform a natural birth, and (2) negligent delivery. Following the presentation of the Crims’ case, the doctor moved for and was granted a partial directed verdict on the issue of informed consent. After the parties presented additional evidence and argument, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor on the remaining professional negligence claim. The Crims did not file any post-trial motions. Instead, they filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, the Crims sought review solely as to the granting of the partial directed verdict. The Fourth District Appellate Court found that the partial directed verdict was improper, reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial. When the case returned to the trial court, there was a dispute as to whether the reversal of the judgment and remand of the case for a new trial required a new trial on the informed consent claim and the negligence claim. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the new trial would proceed on both claims but certified the issue for appellate review. Back on appeal, the Fourth District agreed with the trial court that the new trial should proceed on both claims. Leave to appeal this issue to the Supreme Court was then granted.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial solely on the issue of informed consent. The Supreme Court held that the Crims failed to comply with the procedural methods required for preserving issues for review due to their failure to file a post-trial motion attacking the jury’s verdict. As a result, the Crims had waived their right to a new trial on their negligence claim.
The Supreme Court reasoned that the Crims’ failure to file a post-trial motion challenging the jury verdict deprived the trial court of an opportunity to correct any trial errors and undermined any notion of fairness to the doctor on appeal. The Supreme Court rejected the Crims’ arguments that the appellate court’s general remand served to automatically entitle a party to a new trial on all issues and that their notice of appeal and initial appellate brief preserved all issues of trial, including the jury verdict, for appellate review.
The Crim case demonstrates the importance of filing a post-trial motion if a litigant wants a new trial. The attorneys at The Collins Law Firm are seasoned trial attorneys and understand the importance of following these procedural requirements to protect their clients’ claims.
"*" indicates required fields
