Anderson v. ZAMIR
402 Ill. App. 3d 362, 931 N.E.2d 697, 341 Ill. Dec. 800 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury may not arbitrarily disregard unimpeached and uncontradicted expert testimony regarding the causation of an injury. A damages award that bears no reasonable relationship to the proven loss, particularly when it is substantially less than the undisputed medical expenses, is grounds for a new trial.
Facts:
- On September 22, 2005, a vehicle driven by Saadia Zamir rear-ended Tiffany Anderson's car, causing Anderson's head to hit the steering wheel.
- Later that day, Anderson sought medical care for a headache and sore neck and was prescribed a neck brace and pain medication.
- Anderson received treatment for neck and back pain for approximately six months following the accident.
- In July 2006, about ten months after the accident, Anderson began complaining of specific left shoulder pain.
- An MRI revealed a torn labrum in her left shoulder, for which she underwent surgery in December 2006.
- Two of Anderson's treating physicians, Dr. Perkins and Dr. Brown, testified that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the shoulder injury and resulting surgery were caused by the September 2005 car accident, explaining that a delayed onset of such symptoms is common.
Procedural Posture:
- Tiffany Anderson sued the Zamirs for personal injuries in the circuit court of Jackson County, the trial court of first instance.
- The Zamirs admitted liability for the motor vehicle accident.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on the sole issue of damages.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding Anderson $12,500, which included $5,000 for medical bills and $7,500 for pain and suffering.
- Anderson filed a post-trial motion for a new trial, arguing the damages award was inadequate.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Anderson, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's denial to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a new trial on damages required when a jury, after liability has been admitted, returns a damages award that is substantially less than the plaintiff's uncontradicted medical expenses and ignores the only expert medical testimony presented on causation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Chapman
Yes. A new trial on damages is required because the jury's verdict bears no reasonable relationship to the injuries established by the plaintiff at trial. The defendants admitted liability and presented no expert testimony to rebut the opinions of the plaintiff's two physicians, who both testified that the shoulder injury was caused by the accident. A jury is not permitted to arbitrarily reject unimpeached testimony that is not inherently improbable. Since the only medical evidence linked the shoulder injury and the total $28,804 in medical bills to the accident, the jury's award of only $5,000 for medical expenses was contrary to the evidence, and the trial court abused its discretion by upholding it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a jury's discretion in awarding damages, while broad, is not unlimited. It clarifies that a defendant's speculative arguments during cross-examination cannot, without supporting evidence, overcome direct and uncontradicted expert testimony on causation. The case serves as a crucial check on jury verdicts that are not grounded in the evidence presented, ensuring that plaintiffs with one-sided, credible expert testimony are not subjected to arbitrarily low damage awards.
