The Illinois Supreme Court has tossed out a $1 million verdict that a jury had ordered the city of Chicago to pay to the family of a man who was shot to death by Chicago police as he attempted to flee the scene of a burglary he had helped commit.
But the justices of the high court said the slain man's two surviving accomplices in the burglary - who are now serving 30-year prison sentences for their roles in the burglary - should still be allowed to continue their lawsuit accusing the police officers of excessive force for firing more than 70 rounds into the van they had driven toward police as they fled.
The decision, delivered Oct. 19, partially upheld and partially reversed rulings in the matter from a Cook County judge and a state appeals panel in Chicago.
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Joy V. Cunningham
| Illinoiscourts.gov
The decision centered on the police response to a burglary at an electronics store in the 2400 block of S. Western Avenue, on Chicago's lower West Side, on April 30, 2012.
According to court documents, David Strong, Leland Dudley and John W. Givens broke into the electronics store on that date and loaded stolen merchandise into a getaway van, which they had also stolen.
However, an upstairs tenant in the building called 911, and 19 Chicago Police officers responded to the scene and surrounded the building. According to court documents, they repeatedly told the burglars that they knew what was happening, and instructing them to come out of the building "with your hands up."
According to court documents, the burglars still attempted to escape, by crashing through a metal garage door and through the police blockade, nearly running over at least one officer in the process.
Police responded by opening fire, sending a barrage of bullets into the van as it moved toward them. In all, 76 shots were fired toward the van, striking all three men, and killing Strong.
The Givens and Dudley were later convicted on charges stemming from the incident, including first degree murder as a result of Strong's death. They were each sentenced to 32 years in prison.
In 2016, Strong's family, Dudley and Givens each sued the city, claiming the city should pay because police had acted recklessly and wantonly in allegedly using excessive force to subdue the burglars as they attempted to escape.
In court, the city won judgment against Dudley and Givens, as a Cook County judge determined that their criminal trials and convictions should prevent them from being able to sue, under the legal doctrine known as collateral estoppel.
However, Strong's family's lawsuit went to trial, where a jury determined the city owed his family $999,999. Strong's family had sought more than $7 million.
In that verdict, jurors, in answering a so-called "special interrogatory" posed by the judge, specifically determined that the police officers had not acted recklessly by firing on the van as the burglars attempted to flee.
But the jurors nonetheless determined that the city should be 50% at fault for Strong's death, and awarded his family half of a $2 million verdict.
Following the trial, however, the Cook County judge tossed the verdict, because the jurors' decision to still award nearly $1 million conflicted with its determination that the police had not acted recklessly in Strong's death.
The city, then, appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.
There, the justices unanimously agreed that Dudley's and Givens' cases were not thwarted by their criminal convictions.
In the majority opinion authored by Illinois Supreme Court Justice David Overstreet, the justices said the question of whether police had acted with excessive force in firing at the van was never conclusively answered at the two men's criminal trials.
So, they said, the Cook County court was wrong to side with the city in determining Dudley and Givens had no ability to sue over their injuries suffered in the 2012 incident. In the ruling on the collateral estoppel question, the justices specifically stated their ruling should not be read to indicate the court's position on the merits of Dudley's and Givens' claims against the police.
The justices, however, split 4-3 in determining whether the appellate court was correct in reinstating the $1 million verdict for Strong's family.
In the majority opinion, Overstreet said the Cook County court was correct in determining that the jurors' determination that officers did not act recklessly could not be squared with their decision to still award $1 million to Strong's family.
"In answering 'no' to special interrogatory No. 2, the jury determined that at the time deadly force was used, the City’s officers who used deadly force did not engage in a course of action without legal justification that showed an utter indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others, i.e., they did not engage in reckless willful and wanton conduct," Overstreet wrote.
"The answer to this interrogatory, standing on its own, was dispositive of the estate’s claim. The jury’s negative answer to special interrogatory No. 2 was clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with the jury’s verdict, which apportioned fault on both parties and was appropriate only if the City’s conduct was recklessly willful and wanton."
Overstreet was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis and justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary K. O'Brien.
The court's minority, however, said the majority placed too much stock in the so-called "special interrogatory."
In a dissent authored by Justice Joy V. Cunningham, the other three justices said the jurors' answer concerning whether the police had acted recklessly could still be reconciled with their decision to award the money over Strong's death.
Cunningham particularly asserted the judge never fully explained to jurors that their answer to the special interrogatory could upset their verdict.
"With its decision today, the majority is vacating a clear, unambiguous jury verdict in favor of a poorly worded, ill-conceived special interrogatory that, as far as the jury was aware, had no connection to the verdict form," Cunningham wrote. "It is unprecedented for a court to nullify a jury’s verdict based on the jury’s answer to a special interrogatory when the legal significance of the special interrogatory was not communicated to the jury.
Cunningham said the correct move should have been to disregard the conflicting answer, and uphold the verdict.
Cunningham was joined in the dissent by Justices P. Scott Neville and Lisa Holder White.
Dudley, Givens and Strong's estate were represented by attorneys Robert J. Napleton, Brion W. Doherty and David S. Gallagher, of the firm of Motherway & Napleton, of Chicago; and Lynn D. Dowd and Jennifer L. Barron, of the Law Offices of Lynn D. Dowd, of Naperville.