Hinnen v. Burnett

28 Citing cases

  1. Buttita v. Stenberg

    617 N.E.2d 122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting Hinnen's fundamental premise that pain and suffering is a necessary adjunct to compensable medical expense and holding therefore that a verdict which awards damages for past medical expense is not automatically inconsistent if it awards nothing for past pain and suffering

    " Relying on Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, 495 N.E.2d 141, and the cases following it (see Healy v. Bearco Management, Inc. (1991), 216 Ill. App.3d 945, 576 N.E.2d 1195, appeal denied (1991), 142 Ill.2d 654, 584 N.E.2d 129; Rice v. Merchants National Bank (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 790, 572 N.E.2d 439, appeal denied (1991), 141 Ill.2d 559, 580 N.E.2d 133; Kumorek v. Moyers (1990), 203 Ill. App.3d 908, 561 N.E.2d 212), plaintiff asserts that the jury's award of pain-related expenses as part of its medical expense award is irreconcilably inconsistent with the jury's failure to award pain and suffering and demonstrates that the jury ignored a proven element of damages. In Hinnen, plaintiff Hinnen filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when defendant's pickup truck struck the rear of her automobile.

  2. Healy v. Bearco Management, Inc.

    216 Ill. App. 3d 945 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 32 times
    In Healy v. Bearco Management, Inc. (1991), 216 Ill. App.3d 945, 576 N.E.2d 1195, and Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, 495 N.E.2d 141, in addition to the lack of a former injury which could have caused pain, the jury clearly awarded damages for pain-relieving medicine but gave nothing for pain.

    In the first issue, plaintiff contends the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial because the verdict was inadequate based upon the manifest weight of the evidence. She also claims that, since the jury awarded damages for pain medication and physical therapy but nothing for pain and suffering, the verdict is inconsistent. ( Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038.) Defendant argues that the jury reached its verdict based upon conflicting evidence and heard and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. It contends that the verdict should not be disturbed.

  3. Snover v. McGraw

    172 Ill. 2d 438 (Ill. 1996)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that the jury is charged with weighing the credibility of witnesses and determining the weight to give to the evidence

    Although the appellate opinions are not binding on this court, their reasoning is instructive. In support of their position, plaintiffs rely primarily on Hinnen v. Burnett, 144 Ill. App.3d 1038 (1986). The facts in Hinnen are similar to those present here.

  4. Kumorek v. Moyers

    203 Ill. App. 3d 908 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that jury verdict was inconsistent where plaintiffs were "compensated for the full amount of their expenses for medical treatment, . . . but were awarded nothing for pain and suffering"

    We agree. • 2-4 The decision as to whether a new trial should be granted rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. ( Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, 1039, 495 N.E.2d 141, 142; Ford v. Baker (1978), 61 Ill. App.3d 45, 46, 377 N.E.2d 853, 854.) As a general rule, a new trial in a personal injury action will not be granted on the ground that the damages awarded by the jury are too small.

  5. Rice v. Merchants National Bank

    213 Ill. App. 3d 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 28 times
    Overturning a jury verdict of $48,000 in medical expenses and $0 for pain and suffering where the plaintiff presented expert testimony that she suffered a fractured vertebra leading to permanent back pain, a broken pelvic bone, and torn knee ligaments

    Plaintiff next contends that the jury also disregarded proven elements of damages for her pain and suffering. Plaintiff points out that the jury awarded her $48,000 in damages to cover her medical expenses but failed to award her any damages for pain and suffering, lost wages, or disability and disfigurement. Plaintiff argues that the jury's failure to award her damages beyond those for medical expenses was inconsistent, against the manifest weight of the evidence and requires a new trial on damages only. Plaintiff relies exclusively on Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, to support her position. In Hinnen, the jury awarded the plaintiff $2,500 for past medical expenses but failed to award her any damages for lost earnings, disability or pain and suffering.

  6. Perry v. Storzbach

    565 N.E.2d 211 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 14 times
    In Perry v. Storzbach (1990), 206 Ill. App.3d 1065, 565 N.E.2d 211, a plaintiff was awarded $35,000 for disability and nothing for pain and suffering for aggravation for a preexisting injury. A treating physician testified that in his opinion the injuries plaintiff complained of resulted from the automobile collision giving rise to the litigation.

    On the one hand the jury found defendants liable, and on the other hand, the jury found that Perry suffered damages in the amount of $35,000. Perry relies on the many Illinois cases that set forth the principle that normally a jury's verdict on the issue of damages will not be set aside and a new trial ordered absent a showing that the awarded damages are palpably inadequate ( Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, 495 N.E.2d 141), against the manifest weight of the evidence, or where the jury has clearly disregarded a proven element of damage. Montgomery v. City of Chicago (1985), 134 Ill. App.3d 499, 502, 481 N.E.2d 50, 53.

  7. Simon v. Van Steenlandt

    664 N.E.2d 231 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 5 times

    Seen as evidence of both, the cross-examination of the expert which elicited the cost of future medical expenses was proper, and a jury instruction on those expenses was proper. Kelly next cites Urban v. Zeigler, 261 Ill. App.3d 1099, 634 N.E.2d 1237 (1994), and Hinnen v. Burnett, 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, 495 N.E.2d 141 (1986), for the proposition that the damages awarded were inconsistent and inadequate. Her argument is based upon a zero award for permanent disfigurement at the same time the jury awarded $2,300 for future medical expenses. Kelly reasons that the future medical expense award could be based only upon testimony that a $2,300 operation would be needed to lessen the visibility of the disfiguring scar.

  8. Urban v. Zeigler

    261 Ill. App. 3d 1099 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    In Urban, the appellate court remanded for a new trial on damages because the jury awarded damages for medical expenses, but no other element of damages.

    Many prior cases have addressed whether a verdict awarding damages for medical expenses and no other element of damages is irreconcilably inconsistent. In Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038 (Jones, J., dissenting), the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The jury awarded damages for past medical expenses, but did not award damages for lost wages, disability, or pain and suffering.

  9. Butkewicz v. Chicago Transit Authority

    252 Ill. App. 3d 914 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    Wottowa Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Bock (1984), 104 Ill.2d 311, 316, 472 N.E.2d 411, 413; see also McGuckin v. Chicago Union Station (1989), 191 Ill. App.3d 982, 994, 548 N.E.2d 461, 469 (holding that a jury's verdict which contains inconsistent factual conclusions cannot be affirmed unless the inconsistencies are legally reconcilable), appeal denied (1990), 131 Ill.2d 560, 552 N.E.2d 396. A series of recent appellate court cases, upon which plaintiff relies, has invoked this rule in order to reverse verdicts which award monetary damages for past medical expenses incurred but give nothing for past pain and suffering. ( E.g., Healy v. Bearco Management, Inc. (1991), 216 Ill. App.3d 945, 576 N.E.2d 1195, appeal denied (1991), 142 Ill.2d 654, 584 N.E.2d 129; Rice v. Merchants National Bank (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 790, 572 N.E.2d 439, appeal denied (1991), 141 Ill.2d 559, 580 N.E.2d 133; Kumorek v. Moyers (1990), 203 Ill. App.3d 908, 561 N.E.2d 212; Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, 495 N.E.2d 145. Contra Buttita v. Stenberg (1993), 246 Ill. App.3d 1012 (rejecting Hinnen's fundamental premise that pain and suffering is a necessary adjunct to compensable medical expense and holding therefore that a verdict which awards damages for past medical expense is not automatically inconsistent if it awards nothing for past pain and suffering).) The court in Hinnen provided a cogent statement of this rule and its rationale when it noted the following:

  10. Wade v. Rich

    249 Ill. App. 3d 581 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 14 times
    In Wade v. Rich, 249 Ill. App.3d 581, 618 N.E.2d 1314 (1993), the 18-month-old plaintiff accidentally fell onto the middle of a dog that was sleeping in the sun.

    We agree. • 2 Generally, a decision as to whether to grant a new trial is a matter left to the sound discretion of the court, and the court's determination will not be overturned on review absent an abuse of discretion. ( Hinnen v. Burnett (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 1038, 495 N.E.2d 141.) However, a jury's verdict may be set aside and a new trial ordered where the amount of damages is palpably inadequate or against the manifest weight of the evidence or where the jury has clearly disregarded a proven element of damages.