Richardson v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Illinois · 1997 · Torts

676 N.E.2d 621 (1997)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDamagesIndemnitypresent cash valueneutral figuresexpert testimonyultimate issueinflation

Facts

Plaintiffs Richardson and McGregor were injured when their stopped car was struck from behind by a truck driven by Chapman, an employee of Tandem/Carrier. A jury awarded Richardson over $22 million and McGregor $102,215 against Chapman and Tandem/Carrier, and Rollins later faced liability for unsatisfied portions of those judgments under a Wisconsin statute before settling with the plaintiffs. At trial, Richardson's economist testified to present cash values of future medical expenses and lost earnings using actual case-related figures and a differential approach to interest and growth rates. Rollins had leased the truck to Tandem/Carrier under an agreement containing indemnity provisions, and Rollins sought reimbursement from Tandem/Carrier and Chapman.

Issue

Whether Richardson's economist could testify to present cash value using actual figures rather than neutral figures and whether the damages awards were excessive. Also, whether Rollins was entitled to contractual indemnity from Tandem/Carrier and implied indemnity from Tandem/Carrier and Chapman after settling with the plaintiffs.

Rule

Because the prohibition on opinions embracing the ultimate issue no longer has vitality, the corollary rule from Allendorf requiring an actuary or economist to use neutral figures in explaining present cash value should no longer be followed. A present-cash-value methodology is proper if it treats inflation consistently and does not systematically undercompensate or overcompensate the plaintiff. Damages may be reduced by remittitur when they exceed the range supported by the evidence. Contractual indemnity is determined by the plain language of the agreement, and implied indemnity survives the Contribution Act in quasi-contractual relationships involving purely vicarious liability where the party seeking indemnity was not negligent or otherwise at fault.

🔒

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.

In a personal injury trial in Chicago, Maya Torres seeks damages for future attendant-care costs. Her economist uses Maya's actual projected annual care expenses from her physician's life-care plan and testifies to a present-value range based on those figures. The defendant objects that the economist may explain only the formula with hypothetical numbers unrelated to the case.

How should the court rule on the objection?

Explanation. The majority rejected the former neutral-figure requirement because it rested on the abandoned rule against expert opinions embracing the ultimate issue. Under the case, an economist may use actual figures tied to the plaintiff's projected losses when testifying about present cash value; the jury remains free to accept or reject the opinion.