The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to that effect. ( 252 Ill. App.3d 724.) Presiding Justice Jiganti dissented, regarding the directed setoff application. Plaintiffs petition for a rehearing and alternative request for certificate of importance were later denied.

Following a careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in reducing the jury's award by the total amount of the pretrial settlement. In addition, we find that a disparity would result in setting off the jury's verdict by the entire amount of the pretrial settlement. For that reason, we also agree with the reasoning of Justice Jiganti's dissenting opinion in Pasquale v. Speed Products Engineering (1993), 252 Ill. App.3d 724. In Pasquale, the plaintiffs' decedent was killed while watching a drag race.

(76450) Osterbur v. Convenant Medical Center Miscellaneous Order No. 4-93-0847, filed 11/05/93 ..... Denied. (76360) Pasquale v. Speed Products Engineering 252 Ill. App.3d 724 .................................. Allowed. (76446, 76449) P B M Stone, Inc. v. Palzer No. 3-93-0081, filed 10/12/93 ......................... Denied.

We note that a comparison of this verdict with other cases involving the loss of a limb will not determine the propriety of the jury award here, as each case must be considered on its own facts. Pasquale v. Speed Products Engineering, 252 Ill. App.3d 724, 734-35, 624 N.E.2d 1277 (1993). The CTA has similarly failed to establish a credible basis on which this court may conclude that the jury award of $1.75 million for pain and suffering is excessive.