Illinois Personal Injury Law, explained completely.

The Illinois tort framework

Illinois personal injury law is part of the broader body of tort law, the legal framework governing civil wrongs that cause harm to persons or property. Tort claims are distinct from criminal prosecutions (which seek to punish wrongdoers on behalf of the public) and from contract claims (which enforce agreements between parties). A tort claim is a private civil action by an injured party seeking compensation from the party that caused the harm.

The dominant theory: negligence

Negligence is the dominant tort theory in Illinois personal injury practice. The overwhelming majority of motor vehicle, premises liability, and similar injury cases proceed under negligence theory. Negligence captures conduct that falls below the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances, causing harm to another.

Other tort theories sometimes invoked in Illinois personal injury cases:

• Intentional torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress) when the defendant acted with intent to cause harm
• Strict liability for defective products under Illinois product liability law
• Wanton and reckless conduct for cases warranting punitive damages or removing certain immunities
• Dram shop liability under 235 ILCS 5/6-21 for alcohol-related injuries
• Premises liability for injuries on dangerous property (a category of negligence with specific rules)

The civil burden of proof

In Illinois personal injury cases, the plaintiff must prove every element of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence, the lower civil burden, meaning the proposition is more likely true than not. This is dramatically lower than the criminal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A plaintiff who establishes that each element is more likely true than not wins on that element.

Certain claims require a higher burden:

• Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct
• Fraud claims require clear and convincing evidence of intentional misrepresentation
• Some statutory claims impose specific burdens

Why personal injury cases exist

The Illinois personal injury system serves several functions:

• Compensation. Restoring injured parties to the financial position they would have occupied without the injury.
• Deterrence. Creating incentives for safe conduct by making negligent parties bear the costs of their conduct.
• Accountability. Public recognition that the defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff's injuries.
• Risk allocation. Shifting losses from injured parties to those who caused the injuries (or their insurance carriers).
• Public policy enforcement. Discouraging dangerous conduct through the civil justice system.

The constitutional right to a jury trial

Illinois Constitution, Article I, Section 13, guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. This is a fundamental protection that has shaped Illinois injury law in important ways, including the Illinois Supreme Court's invalidation of damages caps in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217 (2010). The court held that caps usurped the jury's constitutional role to determine damages.

Civil juries in Illinois personal injury cases typically consist of 12 jurors (with some exceptions for smaller cases). The jury determines both liability and damages. Either party can request a jury trial; absent a request, the case is decided by the judge in a bench trial.

The four elements of negligence

Every Illinois negligence claim requires the plaintiff to prove four distinct elements by a preponderance of the evidence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Failure to prove any one element defeats the entire claim. Understanding the elements is fundamental to understanding any Illinois injury case.

Duty in detail

The existence of a duty is generally a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. Illinois courts look at four factors in determining whether a duty exists:

• Foreseeability of harm. Was the type of harm that occurred reasonably foreseeable?
• Likelihood of injury. How likely was it that injury would result from the defendant's conduct?
• Magnitude of burden. What is the burden on the defendant of guarding against the injury?
• Consequences of placing the burden. What are the social and practical consequences of imposing the duty?

In motor vehicle cases, the duty of reasonable care among road users is well established and rarely disputed. In other contexts (premises liability, professional negligence, special relationships), duty analysis can be more complex.

Breach in detail

Breach is the failure to meet the duty of care. The standard is what a reasonably prudent person would have done under similar circumstances, the "reasonable person" standard. In motor vehicle cases, breach often takes the form of:

• Failing to maintain a proper lookout
• Driving at excessive speed for conditions
• Failing to yield the right of way
• Running a stop sign or red light
• Failing to maintain a safe following distance
• Driving while distracted, impaired, or fatigued
• Operating a vehicle in unsafe mechanical condition
• Violating specific traffic statutes (which may also support negligence per se, discussed in Section 8)

Causation in detail

Causation has two components in Illinois negligence law:

• Factual causation ("but-for" causation). The plaintiff must show that but for the defendant's breach, the injury would not have occurred. The breach must be a cause in fact of the injury.
• Proximate causation (legal causation). Even when factual causation exists, the law limits liability to harms that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach. Highly unusual or remote consequences may not be proximately caused.

In typical Illinois motor vehicle cases, causation is rarely disputed. The negligent driver hit the plaintiff and caused the injuries. Causation becomes more complex in pre-existing condition cases, intervening cause situations, and cases with multiple potential causes.

Damages in detail

Negligence is not actionable without damages. The plaintiff must have suffered some compensable harm. The damages are the subject of Section 5 of the Settlements pillar and are taxonomized into economic, non-economic, and punitive categories.

The damages element is often satisfied easily in cases with documented medical bills, lost wages, and injuries. It becomes more contested in cases involving primarily subjective symptoms, emotional distress without physical injury, or pre-existing condition disputes.

Modified comparative fault

Illinois follows a modified comparative fault rule under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116. The rule has two operative components: (1) the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault for the injury, and (2) if the plaintiff's fault percentage exceeds 50%, the plaintiff is barred from any recovery. The "50% bar" is the defining feature distinguishing Illinois's modified system from the more plaintiff-friendly pure comparative fault systems of some other states.

How modified comparative fault works

In any Illinois personal injury case, the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) determines:

1. The total damages the plaintiff suffered
2. The percentage of fault attributable to each party (plaintiff and one or more defendants)
3. Whether the plaintiff's fault percentage exceeds 50% (in which case the plaintiff recovers nothing)
4. If not, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's fault percentage

Worked examples

Example 1: Plaintiff has $100,000 in damages. Jury finds defendant 100% at fault and plaintiff 0% at fault. Plaintiff recovers $100,000.

Example 2: Plaintiff has $100,000 in damages. Jury finds defendant 75% at fault and plaintiff 25% at fault. Plaintiff recovers $75,000 (the damages reduced by 25%).

Example 3: Plaintiff has $100,000 in damages. Jury finds defendant 50% at fault and plaintiff 50% at fault. Plaintiff recovers $50,000 (still recovers because plaintiff is exactly at 50%, not above).

Example 4: Plaintiff has $100,000 in damages. Jury finds defendant 40% at fault and plaintiff 60% at fault. Plaintiff recovers $0 (plaintiff above 50%, completely barred).

The strategic importance of the 50% bar

The 50% bar transforms how Illinois injury cases are tried. Defense strategy in close cases focuses on pushing the plaintiff's fault percentage above 50%, because that one threshold extinguishes the entire recovery. Plaintiff strategy focuses on keeping fault below 50%, ideally well below 50% to also access joint and several liability (discussed in Section 4).

Common areas where comparative fault arguments arise:

• Speed. Even when the defendant was clearly at fault for the basic crash, plaintiff speeding can support fault percentages of 10-30% or more.
• Lookout. Failure to see or anticipate the defendant's conduct can support comparative fault.
• Seatbelt non-use. Illinois law limits seatbelt non-use as evidence under 735 ILCS 5/2-1107.1, but in some circumstances seatbelt non-use can affect damages calculations.
• Helmet non-use in motorcycle and bicycle cases.
• Pedestrian crossing outside crosswalk. Can support 20-40% fault depending on circumstances.
• Assumption of risk. Knowing acceptance of certain risks may support comparative fault.

Comparative fault and multiple defendants

In cases with multiple defendants, the jury allocates fault percentages among all parties (plaintiff, each defendant, and sometimes empty-chair defendants who were settled out or not joined). The total fault must equal 100%. The plaintiff recovers the total damages reduced by the plaintiff's fault percentage, but how that recovery is collected among defendants depends on the joint and several liability rules.

Joint and several liability

Illinois follows a modified joint and several liability rule under 735 ILCS 5/2-1117. The rule distinguishes between defendants based on their percentage of fault, treating defendants with substantial fault differently from defendants with minor fault. The framework affects how a plaintiff collects when multiple defendants are involved and especially when some defendants are insolvent or uninsured.

The traditional rule and Illinois's modification

Under traditional joint and several liability, any defendant whose negligence contributed to the plaintiff's injury could be held liable for the entire judgment, regardless of that defendant's specific percentage of fault. The plaintiff could collect the full judgment from any defendant, and that defendant could then seek contribution from the other defendants.

Illinois modified this rule under 735 ILCS 5/2-1117 to distinguish between defendants with 25% or more fault and defendants with less than 25% fault:

• Defendants with 25% or more fault are jointly and severally liable for past and future medical expenses and other economic damages
• Defendants with less than 25% fault are only severally liable for their proportionate share

Why the 25% threshold matters

The 25% threshold becomes critical when one defendant is insolvent, uninsured, or otherwise unable to pay their share. Consider these scenarios:

Scenario A: Plaintiff has $1 million in damages. Two defendants share fault: Defendant A is 90% at fault and Defendant B is 10% at fault. Defendant A is insolvent.

• Because Defendant B is below 25%, B is only severally liable for 10% ($100,000)
• Plaintiff can collect $100,000 from B and cannot collect the rest from B
• The plaintiff bears the loss from Defendant A's insolvency

Scenario B: Plaintiff has $1 million in damages. Two defendants share fault: Defendant A is 70% at fault and Defendant B is 30% at fault. Defendant A is insolvent.

• Because Defendant B is at or above 25%, B is jointly and severally liable for medical expenses and economic damages
• Plaintiff can collect the medical and economic damages portion from B
• Defendant B may then seek contribution from A (likely uncollectible if A is insolvent)
• The plaintiff is better protected from A's insolvency

Strategic implications

The 25% threshold creates important strategic considerations:

• Multi-defendant case strategy. Plaintiffs benefit from establishing that secondary defendants meet the 25% threshold.
• Empty-chair defendants. Fault allocated to a settled or unjoined defendant affects the remaining defendants' liability calculations.
• Settlement strategy. Settling with a high-fault defendant before trial can affect the remaining defendants' exposure under joint and several liability.
• Pierringer-style releases (discussed in the Settlements pillar) allow strategic settlement with some defendants while preserving claims against others.

Non-economic damages and the 25% rule

The joint and several liability rules of 735 ILCS 5/2-1117 distinguish between economic and non-economic damages. The 25%-threshold rule applies most clearly to past and future medical expenses and other economic damages. Non-economic damages (pain and suffering, loss of normal life, disfigurement) are subject to different treatment under the statute. Specific application requires case-by-case analysis under current Illinois case law.

Contribution claims among defendants

The Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/) governs contribution claims among joint tortfeasors. When one defendant pays more than their proportionate share, that defendant can seek contribution from other liable parties. Contribution actions are common in multi-defendant cases.

Statute of limitations

Illinois has a structured framework of statutes of limitations governing when personal injury claims must be filed. Missing the applicable deadline is fatal: the court loses jurisdiction over an untimely filing and the case cannot be revived. Understanding which deadline applies to a specific case requires examination of the parties, the type of claim, and any tolling provisions that may apply.

The Illinois personal injury statute of limitations framework

The discovery rule

Illinois applies a discovery rule in some contexts, tolling the statute of limitations until the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury and its wrongful cause. The discovery rule applies most commonly in:

• Medical malpractice cases where the injury was not immediately apparent
• Toxic tort cases with latent injuries
• Product liability cases with delayed injury manifestation
• Legal malpractice cases where the attorney's error becomes apparent later

The discovery rule typically does not extend the deadline in straightforward motor vehicle cases where the injury was apparent at the time of the crash.

Statutes of repose

Statutes of repose are outer limits that apply regardless of discovery. Unlike statutes of limitations (which run from a triggering event like injury or discovery), statutes of repose run from a specific date (such as the date a product was first sold or a structure was completed) and cannot be tolled by lack of discovery.

Illinois has statutes of repose for:

• Product liability (735 ILCS 5/13-213)
• Medical malpractice (735 ILCS 5/13-212)
• Construction (735 ILCS 5/13-214)
• Legal malpractice (735 ILCS 5/13-214.3)

Tolling provisions

Illinois recognizes several tolling provisions that pause the statute of limitations:

• Minority. 735 ILCS 5/13-211 tolls the statute for plaintiffs under 18 until they reach majority.
• Legal disability. Tolling for persons under legal disability, with specific rules on what qualifies.
• Fraudulent concealment. When the defendant has fraudulently concealed the cause of action, the statute may be tolled until discovery.
• Defendant's absence from state. Some tolling for periods when the defendant is outside Illinois.
• Continuing tort doctrine. For ongoing wrongful conduct, the statute may run from the last act rather than the first.

Tort Immunity Act

The Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/) is one of the most important and most complex statutes in Illinois personal injury practice. The Act provides specific immunities and protections to Illinois state and local governments and their employees, creating a layered framework that affects every case involving a government entity.

The basic structure

The Tort Immunity Act:

• Establishes a default of liability for government entities, subject to specified immunities
• Provides specific immunities for certain government functions and decisions
• Imposes a one-year statute of limitations for tort claims against local government entities
• Includes specific notice provisions in some circumstances
• Affects damages in specific ways, including limits on punitive damages and willful and wanton conduct standards

Who is covered by the Act

The Tort Immunity Act applies to:

• Local governmental entities: counties, municipalities, townships, school districts, park districts, sanitary districts, special purpose districts
• Employees of those entities acting within the scope of employment
• Independent contractors in some circumstances

The Act does not apply to the State of Illinois itself, which is governed by separate sovereign immunity rules and the Illinois Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/) for many claims.

Key immunities in motor vehicle cases

In motor vehicle accident cases, common Tort Immunity Act issues include:

• Emergency vehicle operation immunities (745 ILCS 10/5-106) protecting police, fire, and EMS in emergency response
• Pursuit immunities (with specific rules for police pursuits)
• Road maintenance immunities for discretionary decisions about road design and maintenance
• Snow and ice removal immunities (745 ILCS 10/3-105)
• Traffic signal and sign immunities for installation and maintenance decisions
• Property condition immunities with various exceptions

The willful and wanton exception

Many Tort Immunity Act immunities do not protect against willful and wanton conduct. The Illinois courts have developed an extensive body of case law on what constitutes willful and wanton in this context. Establishing willful and wanton conduct rather than mere negligence allows the case to proceed despite immunities that would otherwise bar an ordinary negligence claim.

The one-year statute and notice provisions

The Tort Immunity Act imposes:

• One-year statute of limitations for tort claims against local government entities, dramatically shorter than the two-year general personal injury statute
• Notice provisions in some specific contexts requiring formal notice of claims within months of the injury
• Specific procedural requirements for suit against government entities

Missing the one-year deadline is the most common Tort Immunity Act error. Cases that would be viable on the merits are routinely barred because they were filed within the two-year general statute but after the one-year government statute.

Damages limitations

The Tort Immunity Act includes various damages limitations:

• Punitive damages are generally not available against government entities under the Act
• Joint and several liability may be limited in some circumstances
• Specific damages caps in certain categories

Wrongful Death and Survival Acts

Illinois provides two separate but complementary statutes for claims arising from death caused by another's wrongful conduct: the Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/) and the Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27-6). The two acts compensate for different categories of loss and are typically pursued together in a single lawsuit. This section summarizes the framework; the Wrongful Death pillar covers the topic in depth.

The Wrongful Death Act

The Illinois Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180/) creates a cause of action that did not exist at common law. At common law, tort claims died with the victim. The Wrongful Death Act allows recovery by the surviving family members for losses they personally suffered because of the decedent's death.

Key features of the Wrongful Death Act:

• Claim must be brought by the personal representative of the decedent's estate
• Recovery is for the surviving spouse and next of kin
• Two-year statute of limitations from date of death (740 ILCS 180/2)
• Recoverable damages include loss of society, loss of financial support, funeral expenses, and (since 2007) grief, sorrow, and mental suffering
• Settlement requires court approval particularly when minor beneficiaries are involved

The Survival Act

The Illinois Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27-6) preserves the claims the decedent themselves would have had if they had survived. Without the Survival Act, the decedent's claims would die with them and the wrongdoer would escape liability for pre-death harm.

Key features of the Survival Act:

• Preserves the decedent's pre-death claims including pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost wages between injury and death
• Recovery becomes part of the decedent's estate (subject to estate creditor claims)
• Statute of limitations follows the underlying tort (typically two years from injury for motor vehicle cases)
• Punitive damages may be available under the Survival Act in cases of willful and wanton conduct

How the two acts work together

A typical Illinois wrongful death lawsuit includes counts under both acts. The Wrongful Death Act counts seek the survivors' losses; the Survival Act counts seek the decedent's pre-death losses. The rule against double recovery prevents the same item of damage from being recovered twice. Careful pleading and proof keep the categories distinct.

The 2007 amendment

A significant 2007 amendment to the Wrongful Death Act expressly authorized recovery for the surviving family members' grief, sorrow, and mental suffering. Before this amendment, Illinois did not allow recovery for emotional damages in wrongful death cases. The amendment dramatically expanded the available damages and aligned Illinois with most other states.

Negligence per se and res ipsa loquitur

Beyond the ordinary negligence framework, Illinois recognizes two important doctrines that affect proof of negligence in specific circumstances: negligence per se (negligence proven by statute violation) and res ipsa loquitur (negligence inferred from circumstances). Both doctrines provide alternative paths to establishing negligence that are especially important in motor vehicle and product cases.

Negligence per se

Under the negligence per se doctrine, violation of a statute designed to protect the plaintiff from the type of harm that occurred constitutes evidence of negligence, sometimes amounting to conclusive proof of breach of duty. The doctrine works when:

• The defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation
• The statute was designed to protect a class of persons that includes the plaintiff
• The statute was designed to protect against the type of harm the plaintiff suffered
• The violation caused the plaintiff's harm

In Illinois, negligence per se typically establishes prima facie evidence of negligence rather than conclusive negligence; the defendant can offer evidence of excuse or justification. However, in practice, statute violations are powerful evidence that defendants find difficult to overcome.

Common motor vehicle statute violations

In motor vehicle cases, negligence per se is commonly invoked based on violations of:

• Speeding (625 ILCS 5/11-601)
• Running a stop sign (625 ILCS 5/11-1204)
• Running a red light (625 ILCS 5/11-306)
• Failure to yield right of way (various sections of 625 ILCS 5/11-900 series)
• DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501)
• Texting or hand-held cell phone use (625 ILCS 5/12-610.2)
• Improper passing (625 ILCS 5/11-703 to 5/11-708)
• Pedestrian crosswalk violations (625 ILCS 5/11-1002)
• FMCSA violations (in commercial truck cases)

Res ipsa loquitur

Res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") allows the jury to infer negligence from the circumstances of the injury when:

• The injury would not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone's negligence
• The instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant's exclusive control
• The injury was not caused by any voluntary action of the plaintiff
• Evidence of the true cause is more accessible to the defendant than to the plaintiff

Classic examples of res ipsa loquitur cases include:

• Surgical instruments left inside patients (the original Latin doctrine example)
• Products that fail in ways that suggest manufacturing defect
• Vehicles that suddenly veer or operate abnormally without obvious external cause
• Falling objects from buildings or vehicles
• Elevator or escalator malfunctions

When res ipsa applies in motor vehicle cases

Res ipsa loquitur is less commonly invoked in motor vehicle cases than negligence per se, because motor vehicle accidents typically have witnesses, police reports, and physical evidence allowing direct proof of negligence. Res ipsa can become relevant in:

• Single-vehicle crashes with mechanical failure
• Sudden acceleration or brake failure cases
• Tire blowouts and vehicle component failures
• Cases where the only available defendant had exclusive control of the vehicle

Strategic use

Negligence per se and res ipsa loquitur are typically pleaded in addition to ordinary negligence, providing alternative theories of recovery. In cases where the statute violation is clear or where the circumstances strongly suggest negligence, these doctrines can simplify proof and strengthen the plaintiff's position at trial.

Illinois Vehicle Code

The Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/) is the comprehensive statute governing motor vehicle operation, licensing, registration, equipment, and traffic regulation in Illinois. The Code contains hundreds of provisions covering virtually every aspect of motor vehicle use. In personal injury practice, the Code is referenced both for the substantive rules of the road (which establish duties of care) and for specific statutes that support negligence per se claims.

Structure of the Code

The Illinois Vehicle Code is organized into chapters covering:

• Chapter 1: General provisions and definitions
• Chapter 2: Vehicle registration and titling
• Chapter 3: Certificates of title
• Chapter 4: Anti-Theft Law
• Chapter 5: Dealers and transporters
• Chapter 6: Driver's license
• Chapter 7: Mandatory insurance and financial responsibility
• Chapter 8: Motor carriers (commercial trucking)
• Chapter 9: Motor Carrier Safety Law (CDL provisions)
• Chapter 11: Rules of the road (traffic regulation)
• Chapter 12: Vehicle equipment requirements
• Chapter 13: Vehicle inspection
• Chapter 16: Traffic offenses (criminal traffic violations)
• Chapter 18: Size, weight, load, and use of vehicles

Chapter 11: The rules of the road

Chapter 11 of the Illinois Vehicle Code contains the substantive rules of the road, the statutes most often invoked in personal injury cases. Key sections include:

Chapter 7: Mandatory insurance

Chapter 7 of the Code establishes the mandatory insurance requirements: $25,000/$50,000 bodily injury liability, $20,000 property damage liability, and $25,000/$50,000 uninsured motorist coverage as the statutory minimums (625 ILCS 5/7-203). Driving without the required insurance is itself a violation.

Federal motor carrier law (commercial trucking)

In commercial trucking cases, federal motor carrier regulations under 49 CFR Parts 350-399 apply alongside the Illinois Vehicle Code. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) govern hours of service, driver qualifications, drug testing, vehicle maintenance, and other safety requirements. Violations of FMCSRs support negligence per se claims in truck accident cases.

Procedural framework

Beyond the substantive law of negligence, Illinois personal injury cases are governed by extensive procedural rules covering pleading, discovery, motion practice, trial, and appeal. The Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/) and the Illinois Supreme Court Rules establish the procedural framework. Understanding the procedural framework helps the injured party understand what to expect throughout the case.

Pleading: Illinois is a fact-pleading state

Illinois requires fact pleading rather than notice pleading. The plaintiff's complaint must contain specific factual allegations supporting each element of the claim, not merely a notice of the claim's general nature. The fact pleading requirement applies under 735 ILCS 5/2-603 and is enforced through motion practice.

A negligence complaint in Illinois must allege:

• The duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff
• The specific conduct constituting the breach
• The factual and proximate causation between the breach and the injury
• The damages suffered

Discovery

Illinois discovery is governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rules 201-219. Available discovery tools include:

• Interrogatories (Rule 213): written questions answered under oath
• Document requests (Rule 214): requests for production of documents and tangible things
• Depositions (Rules 202-203, 206-208): oral examination under oath, recorded for use at trial
• Requests to admit (Rule 216): statements that the opposing party must admit, deny, or object to
• Subpoenas (Rule 204): commands to non-parties to produce documents or testify
• Independent Medical Examinations (Rule 215): defense medical examination of the plaintiff

Rule 213 expert disclosures

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213 governs expert witness disclosures, a critical aspect of personal injury practice. The rule requires disclosure of:

• The identity of expert witnesses
• The subjects on which each expert will testify
• The opinions to be expressed and the bases for them
• The expert's qualifications
• Reports prepared by the expert

Failure to comply with Rule 213 disclosure requirements can result in exclusion of expert testimony, a potentially case-ending sanction.

Motion practice

Common motions in Illinois personal injury cases:

• Motion to dismiss (735 ILCS 5/2-615 or 2-619) challenging the legal sufficiency of the complaint
• Motion for summary judgment (735 ILCS 5/2-1005) seeking judgment without trial when no genuine issue of material fact exists
• Motion to compel discovery
• Motion in limine seeking pretrial rulings on evidentiary issues
• Motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's or defendant's case
• Post-trial motions seeking new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or remittitur

Trial structure

A typical Illinois personal injury trial proceeds through:

1. Jury selection (voir dire)
2. Opening statements by plaintiff and defendant
3. Plaintiff's case-in-chief presenting evidence and witnesses
4. Defendant's case-in-chief presenting evidence and witnesses
5. Plaintiff's rebuttal if needed
6. Closing arguments
7. Jury instructions from the court
8. Jury deliberation and verdict
9. Entry of judgment

Appeal

Illinois appellate practice in personal injury cases involves:

• Notice of appeal filed within 30 days of final judgment
• Direct appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court (intermediate appellate court)
• Petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court (discretionary)
• Standards of review varying by issue (de novo for legal questions, manifest weight for factual findings, abuse of discretion for procedural rulings)

Illinois has five appellate districts. Cook County cases are appealed to the First District Illinois Appellate Court.

The Illinois trial court structure

Personal injury cases in Illinois are filed in the Circuit Court, the trial court of general jurisdiction. Cook County's Circuit Court is the largest unified trial court in the United States. The Law Division handles major personal injury cases. Smaller cases (those seeking less than a defined jurisdictional amount) are handled in the Municipal Division.

Federal court jurisdiction is available for cases involving diversity of citizenship between the parties and amounts in controversy exceeding $75,000, but most Illinois personal injury cases proceed in state court.

Frequently asked questions

Quick-answer references to the most-asked questions about Illinois personal injury law.

Related references

Continue your research with these related pillar references on the Chicago Accident Encyclopedia.