David Danculovich and Donna Danculovich, Administrators of the Estate of Carl Danculovich, Deceased, Appellants…

Summary

The court reversed and remanded because the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiffs, was sufficient to submit willful-and-wanton misconduct to the jury and to permit consideration of exemplary damages. It held that comparative negligence does not reduce damages arising from willful-and-wanton misconduct, rejected the lost-investment theory of wrongful-death damages, and concluded that comparative negligence makes the last-clear-chance doctrine unnecessary. Justice Rose and Justice McClintock specially concurred in the reversal but criticized deciding the last-clear-chance issue on the existing record and, in Justice Rose's view, the comparative-negligence issue as well.