## Facts

- Niko Husband attended a dance party near 80th Street and Ashland Avenue in Chicago; attendees were frisked and no alcohol was served.
- Chicago police, including Officer Marco Proano, responded to a report of a man with an AK-47 heading toward the location; security indicated the suspect was not inside.
- Police shut down the party and searched attendees as they exited.
- As Husband exited behind Keoni Jackson with his arms around her, officers ordered him to remove his arms; a struggle followed as officers separated them.
- Proano testified he felt a gun at Husband’s waist and that Husband pulled and pointed a gun at another officer; Proano shot Husband three times.
- Whether Husband had a gun, and whether he pointed one, was disputed at trial; Husband died from the gunshot wounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s “Yes” answer to a special interrogatory finding Proano reasonably believed there was an imminent threat was clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with the plaintiff’s general verdict, requiring judgment for defendants.
2. Whether the special interrogatory was legally defective because it failed to address the ultimate issue of legal justification for deadly force (including necessity), rather than only one component of the defense.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment for defendants and remanded with directions to reinstate the $3.5 million general verdict for plaintiff.
- The court held Special Interrogatory No. 1 did not control because it did not conclusively establish legal justification for the shooting.
- The court found the interrogatory answers and the general verdict could be reconciled: the jury could find a reasonable perception of danger yet still find the shooting unjustified and willful and wanton.

## Legal Principles

- A special interrogatory controls a general verdict only if the special finding is clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with the general verdict and conclusively demonstrates the general verdict is wrong.
- A proper special interrogatory must address an ultimate, controlling issue of fact; if it omits a material element necessary to decide liability or a defense, it cannot nullify a general verdict.
- In evaluating justification for police use of deadly force, a reasonable belief of imminent danger is not, by itself, sufficient; the defense also depends on whether deadly force was necessary under the applicable legal standards.
- Courts should attempt to harmonize special findings with a general verdict where a reasonable reconciliation exists.

## Conclusion

Because the special interrogatory addressed only Proano’s reasonable perception of threat and not the full legal requirements for justified deadly force, it did not negate the jury’s general verdict; the appellate court ordered reinstatement of the plaintiff’s verdict and damages award.


Price v. City of Chicago, 2018 IL App (1st) 161599, 97 N.E.3d 188 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)