ILLINOIS STANDARD FOR DIRECTED VERDICT IN BENCH TRIAL - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

Recently completed a case where my client was involved in a rear end collision with a large truck on a local highway. The case was tried to a judge and at the conclusion of my case the defense, as they always do, argued for a directed verdict. What I did not know at the time[but do now]is that the standard for a directed verdict motion in a bench trial is somewhat different than the standard utilized in a jury trial. In a jury trial, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, pursuant to Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co. (Ill.1967), 37 Ill.2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504. In a bench trial setting however, the standard as explained in 735 ILCS 5/2-1110, is a bit different. Section 5/2-1110 provides 2-1110. Motion in non-jury case to find for defendant at close of evidence. In all cases tried without a jury, defendant may, at the close of plaintiff’s case, move for a finding or judgment in his or her favor. In ruling on the motion the court shall weigh the evidence, considering the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and quality of the evidence. If the ruling on the motion is favorable to the defendant, a judgment dismissing the action shall be entered. If the ruling on the motion is adverse to the defendant, the defendant may proceed to adduce evidence in support of his or her defense, in which event the motion is waived. 735 ILCS 5/2-1110 Essentially, as explained in Kokinis v. Kotrich (Ill.1980) 81 Ill.2d 151, 40 Ill.Dec. 812, 407 N.E.2d 43, in a bench trial setting, the court follows a two step process. First, the Court must determine if the plaintiff has established his prima facie case. If not, the motion for directed finding should be granted. If the Court finds the plaintiff has established his prima facie case, the court must then weigh all the evidence, including evidence which favors the defendant. After weighing all the evidence, the court then applies the standard of proof required for the underlying cause to determine if sufficient proof remains to sustain the prima facie case. If the court decides the defendant’s evidence has negated any evidence necessary for plaintiff to prevail, the motion should be granted. If the defense has not negated any portion of the plaintiff’s case the motion should be denied. Thankfully, the court denied the motion and ultimately a significant six figure verdict was entered for my client. The case is presently on appeal.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.