Plaintiff Awarded Second Trial In Car Accident Case After Jury Favors Defendant
When a driver pulls out of a private driveway into moving traffic, another driver’s wave does not eliminate the duty to make sure the roadway is clear.
In Wiggins v. Bonsack, 2014 IL App (5th) 130123, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District reviewed a defense verdict arising from a collision near a busy intersection in West Frankfort, Illinois.
The defendant had been waiting to leave a gas station when a driver in a red pickup truck stopped and waved her through traffic. The defendant proceeded across two lanes of oncoming traffic but did not see the plaintiff’s vehicle before the collision.
The plaintiff was 15 years old and driving with a learner’s permit while her mother was in the passenger seat. She was approaching a red light and was already braking when the defendant pulled into her lane.
A jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence established the defendant’s liability as a matter of law and that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to consider contributory negligence.
The Fifth District agreed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, directed the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability, and ordered a new trial limited to damages.
Important:
The appellate court did not order a completely new trial on liability. It held that liability had been established and that only the amount of the plaintiff’s damages needed to be retried.
What Happened in the Accident?
The collision occurred near the intersection of Logan Street and Route 149 in West Frankfort. Logan Street was a multi-lane roadway with two southbound lanes, two northbound lanes, and a turn lane.
Sheila Bonsack stopped at Podge’s Service Station and attempted to turn left out of the station’s parking lot onto northbound Logan Street. To make that turn, she needed to cross two lanes of southbound traffic.
Traffic was heavy, so Bonsack waited for approximately two to three minutes. An unidentified man driving a red truck stopped in the southbound lane closest to the gas station and left a gap between his truck and the vehicles stopped at the red light ahead.
The driver of the red truck waved Bonsack through. Bonsack proceeded slowly into the roadway.
As Bonsack entered the roadway, her vehicle collided with Tabitha Wiggins’s vehicle.
Gas Station
Bonsack was attempting to turn left out of a private parking lot and cross two lanes of traffic.
Red Truck
Another driver stopped and waved Bonsack through the traffic.
Collision
Bonsack entered the southbound lane and collided with Wiggins’s approaching vehicle.
The Plaintiff Was a 15-Year-Old Driver
Wiggins was 15 years old and driving under a learner’s permit. Her mother was sitting in the passenger seat.
Wiggins was approaching a red traffic light and testified that she was already applying her brakes. She estimated that she was traveling approximately 20 miles per hour or less.
She saw the driver of the red truck make a waving gesture immediately before the collision. She testified that everything happened almost instantly after she noticed the wave.
Wiggins stated that she never saw Bonsack’s vehicle before impact and therefore had no opportunity to avoid the collision.
The right front panel of Wiggins’s Jeep Cherokee struck the left front quarter panel of Bonsack’s vehicle.
What Did Bonsack Say Happened?
Bonsack testified that the red truck blocked her view of the lane in which Wiggins was traveling.
Even though she could not see that lane, Bonsack relied on the red truck driver’s wave and began making the turn.
Bonsack admitted that, in hindsight, she wished she had ignored the driver of the red truck and relied on her own judgment.
She initially suggested that Wiggins might have done something to avoid the collision. But Bonsack later acknowledged that she had never seen Wiggins’s vehicle before the impact and admitted that she had no idea what Wiggins could have done to avoid the crash.
Bonsack also acknowledged that she did not believe Wiggins had done anything to cause the accident.
A Critical Admission
The appellate court relied in part on Bonsack’s own testimony: she could not see the lane containing Wiggins’s vehicle, entered that lane anyway, and later acknowledged that Wiggins did not cause the collision.
Illinois Law Requires a Driver Leaving a Private Driveway to Yield
Illinois law specifically addresses this situation. Under 625 ILCS 5/11-906, a driver entering or crossing a highway from an alley, building, private road, or driveway must yield the right-of-way to vehicles approaching on the highway.
That duty is important in a case like Wiggins v. Bonsack because Bonsack was not already traveling on Logan Street. She was entering the roadway from private property and therefore had a legal obligation to make sure approaching traffic had the right-of-way.
The fact that another driver waved her through did not eliminate that statutory duty.
The Rule at Issue
A driver emerging from a private road or driveway must yield to vehicles approaching on the roadway. Another driver’s wave does not transfer that responsibility to the driver entering the roadway.
What Happened at Trial?
Wiggins presented evidence that she was already slowing for a red light and that there was no evidence she was speeding.
A police officer who responded to the scene testified about the Illinois rule requiring a driver entering a roadway from a private drive to yield to vehicles already traveling on that roadway.
The defense nevertheless argued that the unidentified driver of the red truck was responsible for the accident because he had waved Bonsack through traffic.
The defense also argued that Wiggins may have been contributorily negligent because she allegedly should have slowed down or stopped after seeing the red truck signal Bonsack to proceed.
The Trial Court Gave a Contributory-Negligence Instruction
Although the trial court directed a verdict finding that Bonsack’s negligence caused the collision, it denied Wiggins’s separate request for a directed verdict on liability.
The court then instructed the jury on Bonsack’s affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
The instruction allowed the jury to consider whether Wiggins was negligent in failing to operate her vehicle at a safe speed or in failing to slow or stop after seeing the red truck driver’s gesture.
The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Bonsack.
Why a general verdict created a problem:
Because the jury gave only a general defense verdict, the appellate court could not determine exactly why the jury ruled against Wiggins. The jury may have found contributory negligence, concluded that the injuries were not caused by the collision, or concluded that Wiggins suffered no compensable damages.
Wiggins Asked the Trial Court to Overturn the Verdict
After the verdict, Wiggins moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively for a new trial.
The circuit court denied the motion and entered judgment in favor of Bonsack.
Wiggins then appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
What Is a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict?
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict, commonly called a judgment n.o.v., is appropriate only in limited circumstances.
Under the Pedrick standard, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. A court may enter judgment n.o.v. only when the evidence overwhelmingly favors the moving party so strongly that no contrary verdict could ever stand.
The Fifth District reviewed the circuit court’s ruling on the judgment n.o.v. request de novo.
View Evidence Favorably
The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the judgment.
Overwhelming Evidence
Judgment is proper only when the evidence overwhelmingly favors the moving party.
No Sustainable Contrary Verdict
The court may act only when no contrary verdict based on the evidence could stand.
The Appellate Court Found Bonsack Liable
The Fifth District agreed with Wiggins that the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Bonsack, overwhelmingly established Bonsack’s liability.
The court emphasized that Bonsack was attempting to make a left turn out of a gas station and needed to cross two lanes of southbound traffic.
Bonsack could not see the lane in which Wiggins was traveling. Nevertheless, she relied on the red truck driver’s gesture and entered the roadway.
She then struck Wiggins’s vehicle. Bonsack also acknowledged that Wiggins did not cause the collision.
The court concluded that Bonsack had a duty to yield to traffic already on Logan Street and breached that duty by entering the lane without first establishing that it was safe to do so.
Why the red truck did not resolve liability:
The appellate court treated the truck driver’s wave as insufficient to excuse Bonsack’s own duty to make sure the roadway was clear. Bonsack admitted she could not see the lane occupied by Wiggins before pulling out.
There Was No Evidence Wiggins Was Contributorily Negligent
The appellate court also examined the evidence supporting Bonsack’s contributory-negligence theory.
Wiggins testified that she was traveling approximately 20 miles per hour or less and was already braking because the traffic light ahead was red.
There was no evidence that Wiggins was speeding.
Although Wiggins saw the red truck driver’s waving gesture, she testified that the collision happened almost immediately afterward. The appellate court concluded that there was no realistic opportunity for her to stop before the collision.
The court also noted that Wiggins did not even know whether the red truck driver was signaling Bonsack to cross into the lane where Wiggins was traveling.
Why the Jury Instruction Was Improper
The appellate court held that the contributory-negligence instruction should not have been given because it was unsupported by any evidence in the record.
Illinois law provides that jury instructions should accurately state the law applicable to the evidence presented at trial. A defense instruction should not be given when there is no evidence supporting the defense.
Because the record contained no credible evidence that Wiggins was contributorily negligent, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on that defense.
The Appellate Court’s Finding
The Fifth District determined that Bonsack was responsible for the accident and that the record lacked credible evidence establishing contributory negligence by Wiggins. The jury therefore should not have been instructed to consider that defense.
The Court Also Considered the Injury Evidence
The appeal was not limited to liability. Wiggins also argued that the trial evidence overwhelmingly established that she had suffered injuries in the collision.
Wiggins did not seek treatment immediately after the crash. She later developed sharp neck pain, headaches, and lower back pain and eventually began treatment with chiropractor Dr. Kent Herron.
Dr. Herron testified that Wiggins had suffered injuries consistent with the accident and that she could continue to experience intermittent pain and discomfort.
The defense did not present medical testimony contradicting Dr. Herron’s opinions.
The appellate court nevertheless acknowledged that the jury could have questioned Wiggins’s credibility or Dr. Herron’s credibility. Relevant facts included an approximately 87-day delay before treatment, Wiggins’s statements shortly after the accident that she was not hurt, and her continued participation in sports.
The court therefore did not simply dictate a particular amount of damages. Instead, it concluded that the appropriate remedy was a new trial on damages.
The Opening-Statement Argument Was Not Decided
Wiggins also argued that comments made by defense counsel during opening statements prejudiced her right to a fair trial.
The appellate court did not resolve that issue.
Because the court had already concluded that the defense verdict could not stand and that judgment should be entered for Wiggins on liability with a new damages trial, there was no need to decide whether the opening statement independently required reversal.
A Key Correction to the Original Article
The appellate court did not hold that defense counsel’s opening statement caused the reversal. That argument was specifically left unresolved because the court’s rulings on liability and contributory negligence were already sufficient to require a different outcome.
The Final Result
The Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District reversed the circuit court’s judgment.
The appellate court directed the circuit court to enter judgment in favor of Wiggins on the issue of liability and to hold a new trial limited to the issue of damages.
In other words, Wiggins did not receive an automatic monetary award on appeal. Instead, the appellate court resolved the liability issue in her favor and sent the case back so that a new jury could determine the amount of damages supported by the evidence.
Appellate Outcome
Judgment entered for Wiggins
New trial ordered
Issue not reached
What Wiggins v. Bonsack Means for Illinois Car Accident Claims
Wiggins v. Bonsack illustrates an important principle for Illinois drivers: a motorist entering a roadway from a private driveway or parking lot remains responsible for yielding to approaching traffic.
Another driver’s wave may be relevant evidence concerning what the driver believed was safe, but it does not automatically eliminate the driver’s own duty to make sure the roadway is clear before entering it.
The case also demonstrates the importance of evidence supporting affirmative defenses. A defendant generally cannot obtain a contributory-negligence instruction merely by suggesting that the plaintiff could have done something differently. There must be evidence in the record supporting the defense.
Finally, the decision shows that an appellate court can separate liability from damages. When liability is established but the original jury did not properly resolve the amount of the plaintiff’s losses, the appellate court may order judgment on liability while sending the damages issue back for a new trial.
Practical takeaway:
In a collision involving a driver leaving a driveway, the location and movement of each vehicle, visibility, traffic conditions, witness testimony, and compliance with Illinois right-of-way rules can be important evidence when determining liability.
Talk to an Illinois Personal Injury and Traffic Accident Lawyer
A traffic accident case can involve more than determining who technically caused the collision. Questions concerning right-of-way, comparative or contributory negligence, medical causation, and damages can all affect the outcome of a personal injury claim.
Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents who have been injured in traffic accidents and other personal injury cases. Our attorneys can review the circumstances of a collision, the available evidence, and the potential damages associated with an injury claim.
Contact our Champaign personal injury lawyers to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.
Sources
Wiggins v. Bonsack, 2014 IL App (5th) 130123 — Official Illinois Courts Opinion
Wiggins v. Bonsack — Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District
625 ILCS 5/11-906 — Vehicle Entering Highway From Private Road or Driveway
