Deaver v. Hickox

Illinois Appellate Court · Evidence

EvidenceJudgment notwithstanding the verdictNew trialDue careSeat belt evidenceReconstruction expert testimonyPedrickJNOV

Facts

Deaver was driving south on an oiled road toward an unprotected intersection, with Samples as his passenger, while Hickox approached eastbound on the crossroad. Standing corn about five and one-half feet high obstructed visibility at the northwest corner, and Hickox was familiar with the intersection. There were no competent eyewitnesses; defendant left 39 feet of skid marks and struck Deaver's car about the middle of the intersection. A reconstruction expert testified that both vehicles were traveling about 20 miles per hour at impact and that defendant had been traveling about 32 miles per hour before braking.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly set aside the jury's verdict for defendant by entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability and, alternatively, granting a new trial. More specifically, the question was whether the evidence established defendant's negligence and plaintiffs' decedents' due care as matters of law, or whether those issues remained for the jury.

Rule

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict is improper unless, under Pedrick, all of the evidence viewed as a whole so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand. A new trial is an abuse of discretion when the trial court rejects a jury verdict merely because it would draw different inferences from the same evidence. Seat belt use is not relevant to liability, and habit evidence of due care creates a permissible inference for the jury rather than conclusive proof of due care.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a rural intersection outside Peoria, Olivia Kent was killed when her sedan entered a crossing bordered by tall soybeans that blocked sight lines. In a wrongful-death suit, Olivia's estate offered testimony that she always stopped at blind intersections, but a reconstruction witness testified her car was still moving about 18 miles per hour when it was struck near the center of the intersection; the jury returned a defense verdict.

If the trial judge enters judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Olivia's estate on the ground that her habitual caution proved due care as a matter of law, what is the best argument on appeal?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, habit evidence of due care is relevant but not conclusive. Where surrounding circumstances—such as movement through a visibility-obstructed intersection and impact near the middle—support a contrary inference, due care remains a jury question. JNOV is improper unless all the evidence so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict could stand.