Macias v. Inland Steel Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Kosinski v. Inland Steel Co.

    192 Ill. App. 3d 1017 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 24 times
    In Kosinski, defendant waited until the first day of trial before filing a motion to bar plaintiff's expert from testifying because of plaintiff's failure to seasonably identify the expert in violation of Supreme Court Rule 220 (134 Ill.2d R. 220) then in effect.

    "Under Illinois conflict-of-law principles, the substantive law of the State with the most significant contacts with the occurrence applies. [Citation.] Procedural issues are governed by Illinois law. [Citation.]" Macias v. Inland Steel Co. (1986), 147 Ill. App.3d 411, 414, 497 N.E.2d 1206. • 1 Inland argues its safety manuals established that Inland did not assume the legal obligation to inspect or maintain a safe condition at Three Star's worksite.

  2. Batteast v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

    172 Ill. App. 3d 114 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 18 times

    However, it is not improper argument for an attorney to suggest how a special interrogatory should be answered, as long as the jury is not admonished to conform its answer to its verdict. Burns v. Howell Tractor Equipment Co. (1977), 45 Ill. App.3d 838, 848, 360 N.E.2d 377, 385; Macias v. Inland Steel Co. (1986), 147 Ill. App.3d 411, 418, 497 N.E.2d 1206, 1211. Based upon the record before us, we find no error in counsel's argument to the jury.

  3. Greenberg v. Broad Capital Associates, Inc.

    No. 02 C 6116 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2002)   Cited 1 times
    Applying discovery rule to conversion claim

    Illinois applies the law of the state where the injury occurred for substantive issues and the law of the forum state for procedural issues. Humanes v. General Elec. Transp. Services, Inc., 2000 WL 1029127, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2000), citing Macias v. Inland Steel Company, 147 Ill. App.3d 411 (1st Dist. 1986). Statute of limitation questions are procedural in Illinois. Id., citing Kalmich v. Bruno, 553 F.2d 549, 553 (7th Cir. 1977).

  4. Humanes v. General Electric Transportation Services, Inc.

    No. 99 C 4528 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 24, 2000)   Cited 2 times

    Illinois conflict-of-law principles require courts to apply the law of the state where the injury occurred for substantive issues and the law of the forum state for procedural issues. Macias v. Inland Steel Company, 147 Ill. App.3d 411 (1st Dist. 1986). Statute of limitation questions are procedural in Illinois.

  5. Batteast v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

    137 Ill. 2d 175 (Ill. 1990)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that even when a violation of a safety statute amounts to prima facie evidence of negligence, a plaintiff must still establish that the statutory violation was the proximate cause of the injury

    In Sommese v. Maling Brothers Inc. (1966), 36 Ill.2d 263, this court held that it is improper for counsel to reveal the identity of the party that submitted a special interrogatory to the jury, and to inform them of the necessity of conforming the answer to the special interrogatory with their general verdict. It is proper, however, to argue to the jury that a special interrogatory should be answered in accordance with the evidence. ( Macias v. Inland Steel Co. (1986), 147 Ill. App.3d 411.) Here, the plaintiffs' counsel did not expressly state that the answers to the special interrogatory and the general verdict must be consistent. His argument that the jury should answer that the actions of the hospital were not the sole proximate cause of the injuries was not a statement that the jury should base its answer to the interrogatory on the evidence presented.

  6. Schaffner v. Chicago N.W. Transp. Co.

    161 Ill. App. 3d 742 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 31 times
    Holding evidence of prior accidents admissible to help prove negligence provided circumstances are similar

    • 17, 18 The railroad next contends that the verdict for plaintiffs is excessive as a matter of law. An award of damages is not subject to scientific computation and thus it is a matter for a jury's determination. ( Macias v. Inland Steel Co. (1986), 147 Ill. App.3d 411, 497 N.E.2d 1206; Dooley v. Darling (1975), 26 Ill. App.3d 342, 324 N.E.2d 684.) Where the jury's verdict is not the result of prejudice, sympathy or passion, it will not be set aside.