Northern Trust Co. v. University of Chicago Hospitals & Clinics

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that, where there were multiple theories of negligence asserted against the defendant, and the special interrogatory at issue addressed only one, the special interrogatory was not in proper form as a responsive answer would not necessarily be inconsistent with the general verdict
• absent expert testimony that defendant’s negligent acts caused the injuries within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, a verdict in plaintiffs favor cannot stand
• absent expert testimony that defendant=s negligent acts caused the injuries within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, a verdict in plaintiff=s favor cannot stand
• an “ ‘expert’s naked opinion’ with respect to proximate cause cannot sustain a jury’s verdict”
• a proper special interrogatory “consists of a single, direct question and must, standing on its own, be dispositive of an issue in the case such that it would, independently control the verdict with respect thereto”
• “[T]he trial court may not reweigh the evidence and set aside the verdict simply because a jury could have drawn different conclusions or inferences from the evidence or because it feels other possible results may have been far more reasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).