Flores v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp.

Defendants appealed after a jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in a medical malpractice case. On appeal, defendants argued that the trial court’s response to a jury question deprived them of their constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing defendants’ proposed special interrogatories. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that a unanimous verdict requires that each juror find the defendant was negligent and that defendant’s negligence proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries but that jurors were not required to agree on which of the alternative alleged acts or omissions led them to reach that conclusion and that the trial court accurately conveyed this to the jury. The appellate court further found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing defendants’ proposed special interrogatories. (ODEN JOHNSON and C.A. WALKER, concurring)