Epping v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
315 Ill. App. 3d 1069, 248 Ill. Dec. 625, 734 N.E.2d 916 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When reviewing a jury's award for noneconomic damages, a court will not compare the award to those in other cases; instead, the award will be upheld unless it falls outside the range of fair and reasonable compensation, appears to be the result of passion or prejudice, or is so large that it shocks the judicial conscience.
Facts:
- Mark Schleehauf, an employee of Commonwealth Edison (Edison), was driving an Edison truck when he became distracted while throwing away a pear core.
- Schleehauf failed to see the car in front of him stop, and he struck it from behind.
- The collision forced the other car across the centerline and into the path of Nancy Epping's vehicle, causing a head-on collision.
- Epping, then 49 years old, was a college teacher, museum director, and active community member prior to the accident.
- As a result of the crash, Epping sustained catastrophic injuries, including multiple open fractures to her legs and foot, a fractured wrist, and a fractured and dislocated hip with a cracked pelvis.
- Epping underwent 32 operations, is unable to walk, requires constant assistance with basic hygiene and daily tasks, and can no longer work.
- Her right leg became a non-weight-bearing "flail leg," and she faces the possibility of future amputation.
- Epping's life expectancy at the time of the trial was 32 years.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Epping sued Commonwealth Edison in an Illinois trial court to recover damages for injuries from a car accident.
- Edison admitted liability, so the case proceeded to a jury trial solely on the issue of damages.
- The jury awarded Epping $4.5 million in economic damages and $9 million in noneconomic damages.
- Edison filed a post-trial motion in the trial court asking for a remittitur (a reduction of the damages) or a new trial.
- The trial court denied Edison's motion.
- Edison, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Illinois Appellate Court, challenging the $9 million noneconomic damages award. Epping is the appellee.
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 $9 million jury award for noneconomic damages excessive and subject to remittitur when the plaintiff suffered severe, permanent, and debilitating injuries, but the defendant argues the award is disproportionately high compared to awards in other cases?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wolfson
No, the $9 million award for noneconomic damages is not excessive and is not subject to remittitur. The deference given to a jury's assessment of damages requires a court to uphold the award unless it falls outside the range of fair and reasonable compensation, is the result of passion or prejudice, or shocks the judicial conscience. Illinois courts have consistently rejected comparing damage awards across cases, as the nature and extent of injury to a particular plaintiff are unique. In this case, the record is replete with evidence of Epping's severe, permanent, and painful injuries, her disfigurement, her loss of a normal life, and her ongoing suffering. The jury's award is supported by the specific facts and circumstances of her case and does not shock the judicial conscience.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in Illinois jurisprudence that jury awards for noneconomic damages are given significant deference and are reviewed based on the unique facts of the individual case, not by comparison to other verdicts. It makes challenging large, factually-supported noneconomic damage awards on the grounds of excessiveness exceedingly difficult for defendants. The ruling reinforces the jury's primary role in quantifying intangible harms like pain, suffering, and disfigurement, insulating their deliberative process from appellate second-guessing unless the award is truly unsupported or shocking.
