## Facts

- Katherine Heupel was walking on a sidewalk near the intersection of Woodlawn Avenue and 55th Street in Chicago on September 7, 2000.
- Jorie Lynn Jenkins drove westbound on 55th Street, and Nivethitha Murugeson drove eastbound and waited in a left-turn lane.
- The traffic signal for east–west traffic was green; the timing of any change to yellow or red was unclear.
- Jenkins’s vehicle and Murugeson’s vehicle collided in the intersection.
- After the collision, Jenkins’s car spun onto the sidewalk, struck Heupel, and pinned her against a building, causing extensive injuries.
- Before suing Jenkins, Heupel settled with Murugeson for $100,000 (Murugeson’s policy limit).
- In Heupel’s negligence suit against Jenkins, the trial court denied Jenkins leave to file a third-party complaint against Murugeson but allowed Murugeson to appear on a verdict form for fault apportionment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1117.
- The jury returned a verdict for Jenkins, and the trial court denied Heupel’s post-trial requests for JNOV or a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether section 2-1117 permits allocation of fault on the verdict form to a prior-settling tortfeasor who is neither a defendant sued by the plaintiff nor a third-party defendant.
2. Whether the defense verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence such that JNOV or a new trial was required.
3. Whether alleged improper closing argument or claimed instructional error warranted a new trial.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Jenkins.
- The court upheld the trial court’s inclusion of Murugeson on the verdict form for fault allocation under section 2-1117 despite Murugeson’s nonparty, prior-settling status.
- The court rejected Heupel’s challenges to the denial of JNOV/new trial and found no reversible prejudice from closing argument or the challenged instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Under the appellate court’s pre-Ready construction of 735 ILCS 5/2-1117, the trier of fact could consider fault of a prior-settling tortfeasor when determining a defendant’s percentage of “total fault” for purposes of the statute’s under-25% several-liability threshold.
- A trial court could permit fault apportionment to such a settling tortfeasor on the verdict form even without a third-party complaint, so long as the allocation served the section 2-1117 comparative-fault calculation.
- JNOV or a new trial is not warranted unless the evidence so favors the movant that no contrary verdict could stand, or the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Claims of prejudicial argument or instructional error require a showing of reversible prejudice affecting the verdict.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed a defense verdict and approved placing a prior-settling nonparty tortfeasor on the verdict form to allocate fault under section 2-1117, while also rejecting challenges based on evidentiary weight, closing argument, and instructions.


Heupel v. Jenkins, 884 N.E.2d 1263 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)