Madison County Circuit Judge Chris Threlkeld denied a motion for sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel following a car crash case that ended in a mistrial after “Progressive Insurance” was mentioned in violation of a motion in limine.
Following a motion hearing on March 28, Threlkeld set a case management conference for June 29 at 9 a.m.
Defendant Ruben Vital sought sanctions against plaintiff Jonathan Snyder and his counsel with The Cagle Law Firm in St. Louis.
“For the sake of the integrity of the judicial process, I hope the complaint is dismissed as an appropriate sanction and reminder that no one is above the rules of the court and the rule of law,” defense attorney Daniel Bradley previously told the Record. “The citizens/jurors who answered the call of civic duty deserve to have this addressed in the most serious fashion out of respect for their time and efforts.”
The plaintiff’s counsel could not be reached for comment.
Bradley asked Threlkeld to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. He wrote that a new trial would harm the defendant and opens him to “potentially a $10 million trial.”
“This time and money has been for nothing and is wasted,” Bradley wrote. “They will now have to begin the process again which will mean more time and money so counsel for plaintiff can simply have another bit at the apple and face no repercussions.”
Bradley also sought monetary sanctions, including compensation for preparing and arguing the motion for sanctions, court costs and fees, totaling approximately $36,381.
Additionally, he asked for any future fees and costs if the case is set for a new trial.
“These future costs and fees will be incurred as a direct result of counsel’s conduct,” he wrote.
Bradley filed a memorandum in support of Vital’s motion for sanctions after the mistrial was declared at 10:20 a.m. on March 3.
According to the memorandum, on Nov. 30, 2021, Threlkeld denied Snyder’s motion to cross-examine the defendant’s experts concerning payments received from Progressive Insurance Company. Further, Threlkeld granted the defendant’s motion to exclude all reference to the existence of insurance.
Threlkeld also denied the plaintiff’s motion to limit Dr. Christopher Grote’s testimony. Snyder had argued that Grote failed to adhere to the court’s order concerning a medical examination.
The trial began on Feb. 28 and was expected to last four or five days. Grote was the defendant’s last expert witness to testify during the trial on March 3. During cross-examination, the plaintiff’s counsel first questioned him about failing to perform the medical examination and then asked him about who he received payment from for his work on the case.
When Mundwiller asked Grote how much money he received, he responded between $20,000 and $25,000. Mundwiller then asked where the money came from, and Grote responded that Snyder arranged for payment.
“Mr. Snyder?” Mundwiller asked.
“I’m sorry, Mr. Bradley,” Grote responded.
Mundwiller asked Grote, “Who actually made the payments?”
“It might have been Progressive Insurance,” he responded.
Bradley objected.
After a brief recess, a juror approached Threlkeld’s bailiff about a binder on the plaintiff's counsel's table that concerned him.
“Yesterday afternoon there was a binder open straight in front of me right here at the corner,” the juror said. “It happened to mention ‘Progressive’ and stuff. And I just - I noticed it yesterday and found it unusual that it would be open that way specifically kind of to us. And I didn’t think anything of it yesterday until the last occurrence here. I figured it was worthwhile saying something because I was unsure, and it did seem odd yesterday to see something.”
In response, Threlkeld declared a mistrial.
“In an obvious attempt to influence and improperly taint the jury, plaintiff’s counsel multiple times attempted to provide information to the jury that insurance was involved in the case,” Bradley wrote in the memorandum.
He argued that the issue puts the integrity of the jury system of Madison County at risk.
“If the court allows plaintiff to intentionally violate the court’s pre-trial orders and to intentionally attempt to influence a jury improperly to bolster a plaintiff’s chance of recovery, it insults the integrity of the court, it insults the integrity of the jurors, it insults the integrity of defense counsel, it insults the integrity of defendant, and perhaps worst of all, it insults the integrity of the entire judicial system and is a stain on the judicial process in Madison County, Illinois,” Bradley wrote.
Mundwiller filed a memorandum of law in opposition to sanctions on behalf of Snyder, arguing that dismissal with prejudice is a “drastic sanction” and should only be entered “where the party’s actions show a deliberate, contumacious or unwanted disregard of the court’s authority.”
“Plaintiff’s counsel recognizes this court’s discretion to sustain a request for mistrial and does not question the court’s authority to do so,” he wrote.
However, he wrote that the Fifth District Appellate Court held that a mistrial is not appropriate in instances where insurance is introduced by an “isolated inadvertent or unresponsive reference by someone other than plaintiff’s counsel, with no apparent intent to prejudice the defendant.”
Mundwiller wrote that Grote’s statement that he sent the payment request to Snyder was “obviously an inaccurate statement.” He claimed he attempted to provide clarification that Vital’s counsel was making the payments rather than Snyder.
In regards to the juror’s statements, Mundwiller wrote that the incident was unintentional and involved a “singular page in one of the client binders.” He added that they had “zero objection to juror number six being excused since alternates existed.”
According to a joint statement of the case filed Feb. 22, Vital allegedly caused a collision on Nov. 13, 2018, in Collinsville. Court documents state that Snyder was traveling northbound on St. Clair Avenue. As Snyder neared his residence, Vital was backing out of a private driveway onto St. Clair Avenue and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.
Threlkeld granted partial summary judgment on Oct. 19, 2021, after Snyder moved for summary judgment on the issues of Vital’s liability.
In Vital’s answer to the complaint, he denied liability and argued that Snyder’s alleged injuries were caused by “his own conduct in operating a vehicle too fast for conditions and failing to keep a proper lookout.”
Madison County Circuit Court case number 19-L-783