Confusing Jury Instructions Create Unexpected Liability for Trucking Brokers and Shippers

Plaintiffs have long targeted trucking brokers and shippers in personal injury litigation in search of deeper pockets and additional insurance coverage. While negligent selection claims remain common, plaintiffs are increasingly turning to agency theories of liability—often with greater success. Vague, plaintiff-friendly jury instructions on the “right to control” have lowered the evidentiary bar, allowing juries to impose liability on brokers and shippers even in the absence of written agreements or actual control over motor carriers. As a result, agency claims are emerging as a powerful and costly new front in trucking litigation, requiring brokers and shippers to reassess their contracts, practices, and defense strategies now to mitigate future exposure.

Plaintiffs Take a Chance: The Development of Nonpattern Jury Instructions on the Loss of Chance Doctrine

In Bailey v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, held that a trial court’s refusal to give a loss of chance jury instruction deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial, rejecting longstanding precedent that the Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction on proximate cause adequately addresses loss of chance claims. The court concluded that the pattern instruction fails to distinctly inform juries that a defendant’s negligence may be a proximate cause where it lessens the effectiveness of treatment or increases the risk of an unfavorable outcome, thereby entitling plaintiffs to a separate loss of chance instruction.

Instructing Juries on the Elements of Employment Discrimination: The Important Distinctions Made in Schnitker v. Springfield Urban League, Inc.

In a recent employment discrimination trial, faulty jury instructions may have cost Jamie Schnitker a $100,000 verdict. Her case against her employer relied on these instructions. The Appellate Court highlighted crucial distinctions in employment law concerning causation and mixed-motive claims, emphasizing the need for precise jury instructions in evaluating unfair treatment based on protected characteristics.