## Facts

- Margaret and John Imig drove west on U.S. Route 136 at night after stopping at the intersection with Illinois Route 121.
- A wrecker owned by Raymond E. Burger and driven by Harley W. Beck, Jr. approached and passed the Imigs’ van while towing another vehicle.
- Immediately after the wrecker passed, the towed vehicle crossed into the Imigs’ lane and collided head-on with their van, causing injuries and property damage.
- The Imigs’ son, driving behind them, testified that as the wrecker passed his parents’ van, an “explosion” occurred.
- No direct evidence established precisely how the towed vehicle entered the opposing lane; liability depended on circumstantial evidence and res ipsa loquitur.
- Defendants contended the towed vehicle remained in its lane and that a non-negligent cause (including possible movement by the Imigs’ van) explained the collision.

## Issues

1. Whether the elements of res ipsa loquitur were established so conclusively that plaintiffs were entitled to a directed verdict on liability.
2. Whether, despite the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, conflicting circumstantial inferences required submission of negligence and causation to the jury.
3. Whether an appellate court may set aside a general defense verdict and order a new trial limited to damages based solely on a res ipsa inference.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment for defendants.
- The trial court properly allowed plaintiffs to proceed on res ipsa loquitur and instructed the jury on that theory.
- Res ipsa loquitur permitted an inference of negligence but did not compel it; the inference was not conclusive on this record.
- Because reasonable jurors could draw different inferences about negligence and causation, plaintiffs were not entitled to a directed verdict, and the general defense verdict stood.

## Legal Principles

- In Illinois, res ipsa loquitur applies when (1) the occurrence ordinarily does not happen without negligence, (2) the instrumentality was under defendant’s management or control, and (3) plaintiff did not contribute to the occurrence.
- Res ipsa loquitur creates a permissive inference of negligence; it does not shift the ultimate burden of persuasion and ordinarily does not justify a directed verdict.
- When the evidence supports competing reasonable inferences, the trier of fact decides whether to draw the res ipsa inference and whether negligence and proximate cause were proved.
- A defense verdict may be sustained in a res ipsa case if the record permits a reasonable finding that negligence was not proved or that causation was not established.

## Conclusion

Although the collision supported submission of res ipsa loquitur to the jury, the inference of negligence was not mandatory; because the circumstantial evidence allowed reasonable disagreement about negligence and causation, the jury’s defense verdict was reinstated and the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment on liability.


Imig v. Beck, 503 N.E.2d 324 (Ill. 1986)