This is clearly the correct rule where the verdict of the jury is not clearly excessive. Novitsky v. Boland, 322 Ill. App. 698, 54 N.E.2d 619 (1st Dist 1944); Avrams v. Fuller, 325 Ill. App. 694, 60 N.E.2d 644 (1st Dist 1945). Tri-County can hardly be heard to complain of any reasonable rule on damages when damages are made difficult to ascertain by its misconduct. The more certain is the rule where a wrongdoer's acts appear to be deliberate or wilful.
" The trial court has not only the right, but the duty to grant a new trial where the damages awarded are inadequate. O'Brien v. Howe, 30 Ill. App.2d 419, 174 N.E.2d 905; Avrams v. Fuller, 325 Ill. App. 694, 60 N.E.2d 644. The rule thus laid down in the above cited cases, predicated upon the theory that the trial court must have broad discretionary powers and that his action will not be reversed on appeal except in case of clear abuse of discretion, is not absolute. There are numerous cases that hold that the order of the trial judge granting a new trial was erroneous.
And the court in that case cited a number of cases where the reviewing court overturned the award made by the jury where the proven out-of-pocket expenses were greater than the jury award. Avrams v. Fuller, 325 Ill. App. 694, 60 N.E.2d 644; Hong v. Williams, 6 Ill. App.2d 456, 128 N.E.2d 655; Browder v. Beckman, 275 Ill. App. 193. Here in the instant case the jury found the liability question against the defendant.
(Emphasis supplied) In Avrams v. Fuller, 325 Ill. App. 694, 60 N.E.2d 644, a verdict of $1500 was held to be inadequate where the proven out of pocket expenses were $1572.25. In the same case, as to another plaintiff, it was held that a verdict of $100 was inadequate where the proven out of pocket expenses were $360.