missing witness instruction in Illinois

2008Plaintiff argues she was entitled to the missing-witness instruction under the criteria established by our supreme court in Schaffner, 129 Ill.2d 1 , 133 Ill.Dec. 432 , 541 N.E.2d 643 .

2008Plaintiff argues she was entitled to the missing-witness instruction under the criteria established by our supreme court in Schaffner, 129 Ill.2d 1 , 133 Ill.Dec. 432 , 541 N.E.2d 643 .

2008Montgomery v. Blas, 359 Ill.

2008Montgomery v. Blas, 359 Ill.

1993(Hollembaek v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc. (1985), 137 Ill.

1993Hollembaek v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc. (1985), 137 Ill.

2020ANALYSIS ¶ 34 On appeal, Willis argues that the trial court erred (1) by barring evidence and instructions on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, (2) by refusing the missing witness instruction, (3) by permitting Dr. Laurito to testify that a needlestick during the hospitalization that began on May 25, 2008, may have caused the injury, and (4) by limiting the testimony of Willis’s expert witnesses. ¶ 35 Defendants contend that the two issue rule bars Willis from challenging the ruling concerning res ipsa loquitur. “[W]hen multiple claims, theories, or defenses were presented to the jury, without

2020ANALYSIS ¶ 34 On appeal, Willis argues that the trial court erred (1) by barring evidence and instructions on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, (2) by refusing the missing witness instruction, (3) by permitting Dr. Laurito to testify that a needlestick during the hospitalization that began on May 25, 2008, may have caused the injury, and (4) by limiting the testimony of Willis’s expert witnesses. ¶ 35 Defendants contend that the two issue rule bars Willis from challenging the ruling concerning res ipsa loquitur. “[W]hen multiple claims, theories, or defenses were presented to the jury, without

2008Plaintiff relies on Bargman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 181 Ill.App.3d 1023 , 130 Ill.Dec. 609 , 537 N.E.2d 938 (1989), and Ciborowski v. Philip Dressler & Associates, 110 Ill.App.3d 981 , 66 Ill.Dec. 692 , 443 N.E.2d 618 (1982), to argue that the court's refusal to give the missing-witness instruction, among other errors, warranted a new trial.

2008Plaintiff relies on Bargman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 181 Ill.App.3d 1023 , 130 Ill.Dec. 609 , 537 N.E.2d 938 (1989), and Ciborowski v. Philip Dressler & Associates, 110 Ill.App.3d 981 , 66 Ill.Dec. 692 , 443 N.E.2d 618 (1982), to argue that the court's refusal to give the missing-witness instruction, among other errors, warranted a new trial.

2008Plaintiff relies on Bargman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 181 Ill.App.3d 1023 , 130 Ill.Dec. 609 , 537 N.E.2d 938 (1989), and Ciborowski v. Philip Dressler & Associates, 110 Ill.App.3d 981 , 66 Ill.Dec. 692 , 443 N.E.2d 618 (1982), to argue that the court's refusal to give the missing-witness instruction, among other errors, warranted a new trial.

2008Plaintiff relies on Bargman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 181 Ill.App.3d 1023 , 130 Ill.Dec. 609 , 537 N.E.2d 938 (1989), and Ciborowski v. Philip Dressler & Associates, 110 Ill.App.3d 981 , 66 Ill.Dec. 692 , 443 N.E.2d 618 (1982), to argue that the court's refusal to give the missing-witness instruction, among other errors, warranted a new trial.

2002Moreover, they properly were denied because they do not test the general verdict “against the jury’s determination as to one or more specific issues of ultimate fact.” Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541, 555 , 763 N.E.2d 720 (2002). 5 Even if the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to give the missing witness instruction, plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial because they cannot show any prejudice where the court specifically allowed them to argue the missing witness issue to the jury and plaintiffs counsel took full advantage of that ruling.

2002Moreover, they properly were denied because they do not test the general verdict “against the jury’s determination as to one or more specific issues of ultimate fact.” Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541, 555 , 763 N.E.2d 720 (2002). 5 Even if the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to give the missing witness instruction, plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial because they cannot show any prejudice where the court specifically allowed them to argue the missing witness issue to the jury and plaintiffs counsel took full advantage of that ruling.

1996Simmons v. University of Chicago Hospitals & Clinics, 247 Ill.

1996Simmons v. University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics, 247 Ill.

1999Johnson v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp., 233 Ill.

1994This conclusion was founded on the premise that plaintiff had abandoned Dr. Koman as his expert 19 months prior to trial and had so informed defendant. ( 252 Ill.

1993Board of Regents of Regency Universities v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (1991), 208 Ill.

1993Taake v. W H G K, Inc. (1992), 228 Ill.

1993Simmons Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 106 , 483 N.E.2d 273 .) It was defendant who tendered the missing witness instruction, and a party cannot claim error when it induced the trial court’s mistake.

1993Simmons Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 106 , 483 N.E.2d 273 .) It was defendant who tendered the missing witness instruction, and a party cannot claim error when it induced the trial court’s mistake.

1993App. 3d 449 , 511 N.E.2d 1244 , in which the court gave a missing witness instruction where defense counsel listed an engineer as a witness, deposed him twice, obtained a continuance to enable him to testify, never called the witness at trial, and was evasive when the trial court asked him if the witness was notified to appear at trial.

1992As his primary source of authority, defendant cites United States v. Mahone (7th Cir. 1976), 537 F.2d 922 , where the court affirmed a trial court’s decision to deny a missing witness instruction.

1992Mahone, 537 F.2d at 926-27 .

1989(Gonterman, 41 Ill.

1988Bubrick, 130 Ill.

1985(Tuttle v. Fruehauf Corp. (1984), 122 Ill.

1985(Hicks v. Hendricks (1975), 33 Ill.