 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manus v. Trans States Airlines7/1/2005
Justices: Honorable Clyde L. Kuehn, J., Honorable Terrence J. Hopkins, J. Concurs, Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J. Specially Concurs.
The plaintiff, Kathy Manus, filed suit against the defendant, Trans States Airlines, Inc., in the circuit court of Williamson County, Illinois . After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff raises the issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error by not properly instructing the jury on the duty owed by the defendant. We affirm.
FACTS
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant and alleged injuries incurred at the Williamson County airport on July 2, 1998. The plaintiff alleged that she had injured herself exiting an airplane. According to the plaintiff, when the airplane door opened, stairs extended into place and a stool was placed at the bottom of the steps by an agent of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that she injured herself when she fell and landed on the tarmac as she was attempting to step on the stool. She alleged that it was the defendant's policy to have an employee positioned at the base of the staircase to assist exiting passengers and that there was no employee positioned there at the time of her fall.
The plaintiff presented testimony from Mike Comer, an employee of the defendant. Comer testified that at the time of the incident he was assigned the task of standing at the base of the staircase. Comer testified that he was not at the base of the staircase when the plaintiff fell. Instead, Comer was walking towards the terminal and turned around to see the plaintiff fall.
The court presented instructions concerning the duty the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The jury was given the defendant's modified instruction based upon Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 100.01 (1995):
"At the time of the occurrence in question, the Defendant, Trans States Airlines, Incorporated, was a common carrier. A common carrier is not a guarantor of its passengers' safety, but it has a duty to its passengers to use the highest degree of care consistent with the mode of conveyance used and the practical operation of its business as common carrier by air. Its failure to fulfill this duty is negligence."
The plaintiff tendered the following definition:
"When I use the term 'highest degree of care,' I mean extraordinary care, care more than the ordinary. It means the same as the greatest care or utmost care."
The court rejected the plaintiff's tendered instruction. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
ANALYSIS
The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in its instructions regarding the standard of care owed by the defendant. The court presented the defendant's pattern instruction on the duty of a common carrier to a passenger. Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 100.01 (1995) (hereinafter IPI Civil (1995)). Supreme Court Rule 239(a) requires the use of pattern instructions unless a court determines that an instruction does not accurately state the law. 177 Ill. 2d R. 239(a); Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260, 273, 775 N.E.2d 964, 972 (2002).
Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the trial court should have separately instructed the jury on the definition of "highest degree of care," as the court typically does in "ordinary care" situations pursuant to IPI Civil (1995) No. 10.02.
This court has previously found there was no need to define "highest degree of care." Lockett v. Board of Education for School District No. 189, 1
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|