Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 20.00

INTRODUCTION

An issue instruction tells the jury what points are in controversy between the parties and

thereby simplifies their task of applying the law to the facts --a task made more difficult in many

instances after jurors have participated in several types of cases.

The committee recommends that such an instruction be given; if tendered, the court has the

duty to give it. Goertz v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. , 19 Ill.App.2d 261, 270, 153 N.E.2d 486, 491

(1st Dist.1958).

The practice of informing the jury as to the respective contentions of the parties has

developed gradually.

Some of the early cases indicate that the jury could take pleadings to the jury room and find

the issues by referring to the pleadings. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Buckley, 200 Ill. 260, 65 N.E.

708 (1902); City of East Dubuque v. Burhyte, 173 Ill. 553, 50 N.E. 1077 (1898). Later cases held

that it was error to refer the jury to charges in the complaint in the absence of further instructions

pointing out what was charged. E.g., Krieger v. Aurora, E. & C. R. Co., 242 Ill. 544, 90 N.E. 266

(1909).

It then became common to have a lengthy commentary read to the jury which elaborately

informed them of the plaintiff's allegations of negligence, proximate cause and whatever other

legal verbiage may have been placed in the complaint. These lengthy quotes from the complaint

lent the office of the trial judge to the plaintiff to state his case to the jury. Frequent warnings by

the appellate court went unheeded by lawyers representing plaintiffs until 1953, when the

Appellate Court for the First District reversed a case in which an almost 800 -word summary of

the complaint had been given to the jury. Signa v. Alluri , 351 Ill.App. 11, 113 N.E.2d 475 (1st

Dist.1953).

Signa held that the court should inform the jury of the issues raised by the pleadings in a

clear and concise manner, and that this could be accomplished by a summary of the pleadings

succinctly stated without repetition and without undue emphasis. This method has been approved

in later cases. Smith v. Illinois Valley Ice Cream Co. , 20 Ill.App.2d 312, 156 N.E.2d 361 (2d

Dist.1959); Asplund v. Pavlik , 1 Ill.App.2d 220, 117 N.E.2d 408 (1st Dist.1953) (abstract).

Consistent with this view is the conclusion that an instruction which omits reference to a

defendant's affirmative defenses is reversible error. Walton v. Greenberg Mercantile Corp. , 1

Ill.App.2d 99, 116 N.E.2d 197 (4th Dist.1953). Similarly, issue instructions which include

charges not found in the complaint or supported by the evidence constitute error. Fraider v.

Hannah, 338 Ill.App. 440, 451-52, 87 N.E.2d 795, 800-01 (2d Dist.1949); Burns v. Stouffer, 344

Ill.App. 105, 111, 100 N.E.2d 507, 510 (2d Dist.1951).