Enadeghe v. Dahms

2017 IL App (1st) 162170

95 N.E.3d 1170

Terry ENADEGHE, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Charles DAHMS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–16–2170

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, THIRD DIVISION.

December 13, 2017

Craig M. Sandberg, of Muslin & Sandberg, of Chicago, for appellant.

G. Grant Dixon III, of Dixon Law Office, of LaGrange, for appellee.

OPINION

JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a civil jury trial, defendant Charles Dahms was found to have acted both negligently and with willful and wanton misconduct against plaintiff Terry Enadeghe when he beat him with his briefcase during a morning encounter on a roadway. The jury awarded damages. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in relying on his prior criminal conviction for battery as a basis for liability and in denying his jury instructions and special interrogatories. He also contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motions for a mistrial and permitting plaintiff to amend his complaint. We affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On March 20, 2013, following a criminal jury trial, defendant was found guilty of aggravated battery on a public way ( 720 ILCS 5/12–3.05(c) (West 2012)) for the incident in this case, then sentenced to 18 months' probation. On April 23, 2015, this court affirmed his criminal conviction on appeal. People v. Dahms , 2015 IL App (1st) 133301-U, 2015 WL 1881242. The Illinois Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for leave to appeal on September 30, 2015, and the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari on March 7, 2016.¹

¶ 4 Evidence in the criminal case revealed that in October 2011, Enadeghe was driving his taxicab in downtown Chicago when he stopped at a traffic light in the middle of the crosswalk, unintentionally blocking it. Defendant then approached and smashed his briefcase into the taxi's front windshield, shattering it, then walked away. Enadeghe parked and confronted defendant, asking him to survey the damage to the taxi. At one point, Enadeghe attempted to block him and grabbed the briefcase. Enadeghe then felt a "bang" on his face as defendant took his briefcase once again, using it to hit Enadeghe in the nose, knocking him unconscious to the ground. Enadeghe was hospitalized and received 11 stitches from the bridge of his nose to under his eye, then later had general anesthesia surgery. Defendant was arrested, and Enadeghe identified him from a lineup.

¶ 5 Defendant testified to a different version of events in which he "tapped" Enadeghe's windshield in an effort to avoid being hit by the taxi cab, which had improperly entered the intersection. Enadeghe then followed him on foot regarding his taxi. Enadeghe then grabbed defendant by his shirt and repeatedly grabbed the briefcase, which defendant says he ultimately pulled away, accidentally striking Enadeghe in the face. In short, he claimed that he did not intend to strike or injure Enadeghe.

¶ 6 Several other witnesses testified in favor of plaintiff, including a CTA bus driver and another pedestrian. The parties also testified about a surveillance video, which was played before the jury, capturing the initial events but not the encounter leading to the injury.

¶ 7 In addition to the criminal case, plaintiff filed a civil suit against Dahms. In it, Enadeghe ultimately alleged counts of negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. Prior to trial, Dahms filed a motion in limine to exclude his criminal conviction, while Enadeghe filed a motion to allow the conviction. Dahms argued his criminal conviction was not final because he had filed a writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court that had not yet been ruled upon. The jury trial began. After Dahms had testified as an adverse witness, but before Enadeghe presented his case in chief, the trial court denied defendant's motion in limine , noting that the criminal conviction arose out of the same facts and circumstances as the civil case. The court ruled that the criminal battery conviction could be used as prima facie evidence of willful and wanton misconduct, since the intent underlying both was the same, and ruled that the conviction's probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

¶ 8 Trial then continued with much of the testimony mirroring the previous criminal case,² with defendant testifying as an adverse witness for the plaintiff. There was also testimony as to damages incurred. For example, Enadeghe underwent three reconstructive surgeries on his nose, and still required additional surgery to correct a scar. After testimony, Enadeghe rested his case. Dahms also rested without presenting any evidence and rested on his counterclaim alleging negligence and battery on the part of Enadeghe. The parties and the court returned to the issue of introducing the criminal conviction to the jury.

¶ 9 The parties provided extensive argument on the propriety of using the conviction, and the trial court reviewed the Illinois Supreme Court case American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Savickas , 193 Ill. 2d 378, 250 Ill.Dec. 682, 739 N.E.2d 445 (2000), discussing collateral estoppel based on a criminal conviction. Ultimately, the court ruled that given Dahms's criminal conviction, there was no trial issue remaining as to Dahms's liability for negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. The court also ruled that Dahms was estopped from presenting instructions on his affirmative defenses and struck his countercomplaint. As such, the only issue before the jury concerned causation and damages, and Dahms's criminal conviction was not introduced to the jury. The jury found Dahms liable for some $130,000 for medical expenses, disability, pain and suffering, and disfigurement resulting from the injury to Enadeghe.

¶ 10 Dahms filed a posttrial motion, which was denied, and this appeal followed.

¶ 11 ANALYSIS

¶ 12 Dahms first contends the trial court erred in concluding that the criminal conviction satisfied proof towards liability in his civil trial. Collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine of judicial origin created to prevent relitigation of previously adjudicated claims and is founded on principles of judicial economy. Ballweg v. City of Springfield , 114 Ill. 2d 107, 113, 102 Ill.Dec. 360, 499 N.E.2d 1373 (1986). Criminal convictions can have an estoppel effect on civil litigation like the present when three threshold requirements are met. Savickas , 193 Ill. 2d at 387, 250 Ill.Dec. 682, 739 N.E.2d 445. The issue decided in the criminal case must be identical with that in the civil case, there must have been a judgment on the merits in the criminal case, and the party against whom the estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior adjudication. Id. In addition, no unfairness must result to the party who is estopped from relitigation. Id. at 388, 250 Ill.Dec. 682, 739 N.E.2d 445. The court, in determining whether estoppel should apply, must balance the need to limit litigation against the right to an adversarial proceeding in which a party is accorded full and fair opportunity to present his case. Id.

¶ 13 In this case, there is no dispute that the parties are the same for the purposes of collateral estoppel. Dahms, however, challenges the identity of the issues and finality of the criminal conviction. For the reasons to follow, we reject his challenge.

¶ 14 The jury in Dahms's criminal trial found he committed aggravated battery on a public way when Dahms knowingly, and without legal justification, caused bodily harm to Enadeghe or made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with him by beating plaintiff with a briefcase on Clinton Street. See 720 ILCS 5/12–3, 12–3.05(c) (West 2012). The elements of negligence include a duty, breach, proximate causation, and damages. Doe–3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors , 2012 IL 112479, ¶ 29, 362 Ill.Dec. 484, 973 N.E.2d 880. It is well-settled that every person owes to all other persons a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury which naturally flows as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of his act. Id. ¶ 30. Willful and wanton conduct requires plaintiffs to plead and prove the elements of negligence plus a deliberate intention to harm or a conscious disregard for plaintiffs' welfare. Id. ¶ 29.

¶ 15 Here, the evidence presented at the criminal trial demonstrated that Enadeghe satisfied the less stringent civil elements of duty, breach, causation, and intent to harm necessary for a finding of negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. See Savickas , 193 Ill. 2d at 389, 250 Ill.Dec. 682, 739 N.E.2d 445 (tort intent generally means a desire to cause consequences or a substantially certain belief that the consequences will result).³ Plainly stated, the evidence showed Dahms failed to exercise ordinary care in his handling of the briefcase, causing injury to Enadeghe, and his actions also showed a reckless and/or deliberate intent to injure plaintiff. Collateral estoppel thus barred Dahms from relitigating the matter, and the trial court did not err in submitting only the issue of damages to the jury at the civil trial.

¶ 16 Dahms counters that several issues were never actually litigated in the criminal trial, and therefore the civil trial court erred in relying on the conviction for collateral estoppel purposes. For example, Dahms argues he raised affirmative defenses of self-defense and contributory negligence in the civil trial, but no such defense was raised in the criminal trial. The salient point for collateral estoppel is that Dahms had the full and fair opportunity to litigate all relevant issues in his criminal trial, as required. See Savickas , 193 Ill. 2d 378, 250 Ill.Dec. 682, 739 N.E.2d 445. Dahms testified at his trial, he was represented by counsel, and had an incentive to defend against the State's high burden of reasonable doubt.

¶ 17 Dahms's argument also is not well-taken, given that the evidence at his...