Olson v. Fleetwood

7 Citing cases

  1. Regan v. Vizza

    65 Ill. App. 3d 50 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 13 times
    In Regan v. Vizza, 65 Ill. App. 3d 50, 53-54 (1978), it was reversible error for the defense, in closing argument, to refer to the testifying doctor as a " 'hired gun in the old west' " because that comment was not supported by the evidence—the expert was the treating physician, whom the plaintiff visited upon referral not from his lawyer but from the emergency-room doctor; the doctor had not been retained by the plaintiff.

    But, it seems fairly well settled that a verdict in an amount less than the proved out-of-pocket expenses of plaintiff is patently inadequate. Olson v. Fleetwood (1969), 116 Ill. App.2d 411, 417, 254 N.E.2d 271, 274. In Hong v. Williams (1955), 6 Ill. App.2d 456, 461, 128 N.E.2d 655, 657, the court held that a verdict for $1000 was obviously inadequate where proved out-of-pocket expenses were $1350.

  2. Ford v. Baker

    377 N.E.2d 853 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 17 times
    In Ford v. Baker (1978), 61 Ill. App.3d 45, the plaintiff claimed special damages of $537.99 for a spinal injury and also sought to recover for her pain and suffering.

    The rule set forth in the cited cases is that jury verdicts which are palpably inadequate may be set aside and the only basis for determining whether damages are palpably or obviously inadequate is the sound judgment of the one considering the evidence as a whole. There is case law supporting judgments as adequate where the amount of damages awarded was less than the amount of special damages claimed ( Haleem v. Onate; Mount v. McClellan); where the amount of damages awarded was only slightly more than the amount of special damages claimed ( Olson v. Fleetwood (1970), 116 Ill. App.2d 411, 254 N.E.2d 271); and, where the amount of damages awarded was the same as the special damages claimed ( Kelley v. Cross). There is also case law setting aside the verdicts of the jury as inadequate where the damages awarded were more than the special damages claimed. Haizen v. Yellow Cab Co. (1963), 41 Ill. App.2d 330, 190 N.E.2d 514; Kinsell v. Hawthorne (1960), 27 Ill. App.2d 314, 169 N.E.2d 678; Luner v. Gelles (1942), 314 Ill. App. 659, 42 N.E.2d 313; Montgomery v. Simon (1941), 309 Ill. App. 516, 33 N.E.2d 642; Rapp v. Kennedy (1968), 101 Ill. App.2d 82, 242 N.E.2d 11; Borkstrom v. South Shore Garages, Inc. (1944), 323 Ill. App. 285, 55 N.E.2d 402; Mineiko v. Rizzuot (1965), 65 Ill. App.2d 35, 212 N.E.2d 712.

  3. Rivera v. Rockford Mach. Tool Co.

    1 Ill. App. 3d 641 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 31 times
    In Rivera v. Rockford Machine Tool Co. (1971), 1 Ill. App.3d 641, 274 N.E.2d 828, the court affirmed a jury verdict against the defendant manufacturer of a plastic injection molding machine.

    Thus it has been held that a court of review should not disturb the jury's assessment of damages in a personal injury suit unless it appears that the jury was improperly instructed on the issue of damages or that the verdict is the result of passion or prejudice. (See Olson v. Fleetwood (1970), 116 Ill. App.2d 411, 254 N.E.2d 271.) Defendant does not contend that the jury was improperly instructed on damages. The substantial medical evidence contained in the record with respect to the extent of the amputation, decreased mobility of the remaining forearm, plantiff's inability to adapt to the use of a prosthetic device, and post operative effects coupled with the evidence on loss of income precludes a finding that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice.

  4. Kelly v. Reynolds

    271 N.E.2d 370 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 7 times
    In Kelly, the jury awarded $2,000 even though the plaintiff incontrovertibly established that she had not only incurred out-of-pocket expenses of $2,020.

    Under the posture of the evidence in this case a verdict in a lesser amount than the uncontradicted out-of-pocket expenses is manifestly inadequate — indisputably insufficient. Olson v. Fleetwood, 116 Ill. App.2d 411, 254 N.E.2d 271; Rapp v. Kennedy, 101 Ill. App.2d 82, 242 N.E.2d 11; Mineiko v. Rizzuto, 65 Ill. App.2d 35, 212 N.E.2d 712; O'Brien v. Howe, 30 Ill. App.2d 419, 174 N.E.2d 905; Stroyeck v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 26 Ill. App.2d 76, 167 N.E.2d 689; I.L.P. Damages § 162. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Clark County will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial as to damages only.

  5. Davis v. Yellow Cab Co.

    273 N.E.2d 35 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 10 times

    We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact with reference to the amount of damages to be awarded in any particular case. ( Olson v. Fleetwood, 116 Ill. App.2d 411, 417; Stephenson v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., 114 Ill. App.2d 124, 138; Diefenbach v. Pickett, 111 Ill. App.2d 80, 88; Blyzes v. Midwest Towing Co., Inc., 109 Ill. App.2d 48, 55.) However, it is equally well settled that where the assessment of damages is manifestly inadequate, or where it appears that important elements of damages have been disregarded or overlooked, this court may then, at its discretion, order a new trial on the issue of damages.

  6. Wisnawski v. Hungerford

    267 N.E.2d 507 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 3 times

    Plaintiff's second contention, namely that the court erred in failing to award a new trial for damages only because the jury arbitrarily abused its discretion in the assessment of damages, presents a very similar issue. Quite recently this court decided Olson v. Fleetwood (1969), 116 Ill. App.2d 411, in which similar contentions were made. In Olson v. Fleetwood, plaintiff appealed from an order of the trial court that denied a post-trial motion for a new trial as to damages only. There the plaintiff, while driving her auto, was struck in the rear by an auto driven by the defendant and plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury to her neck.

  7. Romine v. Scott

    264 N.E.2d 537 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    Johanneson v. Ring (1967), 82 Ill. App.2d 340, 346; Mineiko v. Rizzuto (1965), 65 Ill. App.2d 35, 38; First Nat. Bank of Elgin v. Szwankowski (1969), 109 Ill. App.2d 268, 274. While the rules are not in dispute, we noted in Olson v. Fleetwood (1970), 116 Ill. App.2d 411, 416, 417 that there is a "deplorable lack of consistency in the reported cases on the question of inadequate verdicts in personal injury cases". (See also Anno. 11 A.L.R.3d 9, Secs. 3, 33, and later case service; and 15 I.L.P. 162.)