First Midwest Bank of Waukegan v. Denson

Citations: 562 N.E.2d 1256; 205 Ill. App. 3d 124; 150 Ill. Dec. 453; 1990 Ill. App. LEXIS 1706Docket: 2-89-1319

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; November 8, 1990; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

First Midwest Bank of Waukegan, as the special administrator for Vincent Moore's estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Jack Denson, who shot Moore. The jury found Denson not liable, determining he acted in self-defense. The bank appealed, arguing the trial court wrongly denied its motion for a directed verdict on Denson's liability and that the jury's verdict was contrary to the evidence. 

The case involves events from October 27, 1987, when Denson, the building owner, discovered broken locks in the basement apartment previously rented to the Moores and disposed of their clothing found inside. Following an argument regarding the discarded clothes, Moore and his friend Terry confronted Denson. During the dispute, Denson drew a revolver and fired a shot that struck Moore, who was running away at the time. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, supporting Denson's claim of self-defense.

Adams observed Terry and Moore approach a building's entrance, where Moore stood on the top step while Terry was partially inside the doorway. A loud conversation ensued between Terry and a person inside, with Moore remaining silent. After a minute, Moore suggested they leave, prompting Terry to descend the stairs. As they did, the person inside yelled obscenities at Terry, who began to ascend again despite Moore's urging to ignore the situation. At this moment, a gun barrel emerged from the doorway, and a shot struck Moore, causing him to run down the steps and collapse on the lawn. Adams noted that neither Terry nor Moore charged at the person in the doorway.

Denson, the individual inside the building, testified that earlier that day, Moore inquired about some clothes he believed he had left behind. Denson informed Moore that the clothes had been discarded, which angered Moore. After an argument between Terry and Denson about the clothes, Denson asked both men to leave. During the confrontation, Terry removed keys from the front door lock and threw them into the foyer. Denson's account indicated that when he attempted to close the door on them, Terry kicked it back, leading both men to charge at him. Denson, feeling threatened and cornered, fired a shot when Moore was within two feet of him, fearing he would be pushed down the stairs.

After the shooting, Valerie Evans, Denson's stepdaughter, testified that she heard Denson say he was trying to prevent the men from pushing him down the stairs and that he was only trying to scare them, although Denson denied making this statement. Evans also recounted hearing Moore apologize after he was shot. Additionally, Rodney Pitts, Denson's stepgrandson, testified that Denson expressed he did not intend to shoot Moore. Denson's credibility was challenged by his previous deposition where he stated he did not mean to pull the trigger and claimed that Moore was not angry during the incident.

Moore was 21 years old, while Denson, aged 67, and Terry, in his early twenties, were involved in the incident. Denson, at 6'3" and 250 pounds, and Moore, also 6'3" but weighing 195 pounds, were both noted as having peaceful reputations. Dr. Larry Blum, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy on Moore, revealing a gunshot wound that entered the upper back of his left arm and exited through his chest, causing internal hemorrhaging. Blum concluded that the bullet's trajectory was downward and determined that Moore was likely over two feet away from Denson during the shooting, as no gunshot residue was found on Moore's body.

Witnesses corroborated the peaceful nature of both Denson and Moore. The jury denied the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on Denson's liability and ultimately found Denson not liable, concluding that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent harm to himself. The standard for overturning a jury verdict is high, requiring clear evidence that the verdict was unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence. The determination of witness credibility and the weight of their testimony is solely within the jury's purview.

Section 7-1 of the Criminal Code allows for the use of force in self-defense when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect against imminent unlawful force. Key factors in assessing self-defense include whether the individual was the aggressor, the immediacy of the danger, the nature of the threatened force, the individual's belief in the danger and necessity of force, and the reasonableness of that belief. The question of justification in self-defense is ultimately a factual issue for the jury, and the principles of self-defense apply in both criminal and civil contexts.

In Ewurs v. Pakenham, the court affirmed that an individual may use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, applying this principle to civil cases. In Winn v. Inman, the court determined that a self-defense instruction should have been provided to the jury. Blackburn v. Johnson referenced both Ewurs and Winn, confirming that civil juries can be instructed on self-defense. Similarly, in Schnepf v. Grubb, the court noted self-defense statutes and criminal case precedents in its analysis. The jury in Schnepf found that a police officer acted in self-defense when he fatally shot an unarmed man who had previously attacked him, citing the officer's injuries and the decedent's aggressive behavior. The court upheld the jury's verdict, indicating that the officer reasonably believed lethal force was needed based on the circumstances, including the age and physical disparity between the parties and the decedent's actions. The current case shares similarities with Schnepf, including age differences and perceived threats, as the defendant testified that the decedent and another individual approached him aggressively without cause.

No prior conflict existed between Denson and Moore, unlike the situation in Schnepf. However, Moore's illegal entry into Denson's building raised concerns about a potential threat he posed. Additionally, there was a risk that if Terry and Moore encountered Denson, they could physically harm him by pushing him down the stairs. The jury found Denson's account of events more credible than those of Terry or Evans, leading to a rational conclusion that Denson believed lethal force was justified to prevent serious injury. The verdict aligned with the evidence presented. The plaintiff's request for a directed verdict was denied, as such a motion requires overwhelming evidence favoring the movant, which was not met given the jury's findings. Consequently, the judgment from the Lake County circuit court is affirmed.