their evidence from the remaining parties of the passout family or one of the extended has a family that there had been over periods of time difficulties estrangements counseling and things should  point to be honest question is the only evidence to contradict that might possibly contradict this dramatic discussion by all of the witnesses of what the loss of the along pretty well but the fact that two people happened to sleep in separate rooms during an argument in the barrel strikes me as something you would see in a movie comedy and that the chance that you know him in my estimation go to a jury  even though there's no presumption in this case the plane tell the benefit of the presumption of loss of society that's a presumption that somebody has to destroy this that this court would have to say that having marriage counseling and in terms of six years he gets on the stand and he testifies his first five years are really tough we had all sorts of problems that house on the scale of this but in this last year for life things have been wonderful others who had no formal counsel and that is the jury the twelve good men and women who were asked to listen to the evidence watched the witnesses testimony testify here the instructions given to them without challenge and reach a verdict on the evidence they are twelve members of the jury did they reached a unanimous verdict in return and the question before this court is not to decide what constitutes a loss of society or w wasn't misleading in separate rooms because they had an argument it was six months sleeping in separate beds producing the arguments that the husband is the daughter they were very honest and very candid because they obviously now that some problems there was a good move the argument was anything you don't know that you're not here to decide what amount of damages is appropriate we have a seizure as to what amount of damages was appropriate the question is whether there was evidence to support that decision the evidence was  know mission in this record isn't any reference whatsoever to sexual relations which is an unusual omission in a claim of this sort and that's just us but there was also as two daughters there was the evidence that they when they had the option of choosing a parent to stay begin the jury making them to turn a nation with a presentation to it of all the evidence concerning what the relationship of these people was during the student's life they were making a determination as to what their relationship might have been at the time of her death but is informed disbelieve subjective testimony about non economic damages it can especially disbelieve that testimony if it's impression of the testimony is that it's not credible based upon whom the the other testimony given about the rest of the relationship if for and then heard the kind of sissified if everything was peachy keen and hunky dory at the time that need to see him die it may have found evidence unbelievable not credible not consistent with the rest of the evidence and they did then within the confines of what the jury system ask them to do demands them to do in fact in the parlance of the jury demands and that and they did it to the best of their ability the evidence that was presented to them allowed them to reach a conclusion that there was not any society between these people that may be a difficult decision for this court to accept it may be hard to think that there are families like that it's a hard decision for a jury to reach but we call on juries to make hard decisions in cases like this we ask them to evaluate and we demand in fact that they evaluate the relationship of people who come before them to prove their relationship and if they don't find that relationship relationship to have been proved if they don't believe the evidence that the relationship was over was all sweetness and light at the time of the scene died there is no case in illinois that requires them daughters testified in this case it's a very similar whether the wife testify in this case in that case the daughter was awarded nothing and that the appellate court found that to be consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence i'm sure that was a hard decision both for the do we tell juries and maybe this is not our position or our job right now but how do we tell juries that you have to you have to watch the presumption they may not know these things and there was six years  evidence presented to them and put to it to apply to read their own experiences their own background and and life experiences that they bring to all aspects of the factual determinations they're called upon to make jurors are very carefully selected as always as the court is well aware of their important part of the trial very carefully selected by both parties to be a body of people who damage the sort of damage that the course have repeatedly referred to as something that is is not just not economic but subjective intangible to the sorts of things that are particularly suited to the life experiences of a jury in evaluating the sorts of things that can only be testified to only evidence in some respects by the subjective complaints or subjective testimony of the plaintiffs and it is a uniquely jury function to evaluate the credibility of that testimony in the context of their life experiences but also in the context of the evidence presented to them all all the elements concerning the of the relationships  doesn't find the deathbed arguments to the deathbed expression of a close relationship to be credible in the light of all in other testimony that that is the reason the jury's decision to make these can be particularly difficult questions to answer and difficult for leaks to render in the context of a family situation they can be especially difficult to evaluate on you in the family situation all happy families are alike it's better written everyone happy family is unhappy in its own way hopefully we're all fortunate to come from happy families that as someone said are all alike but the different family dynamics standard used to be normal the wealth of cases many of them cited in our brief that they describe the difference to be given to the jury of the snow or case that the counsel for she was just one of them the cases they referred to today b only check in christ there are all cases of a time with that this was a jury question answered by the jury the jury was asked to do its job and did it to the best of its ability and with no apparent ignoring any evidence if you chose to had sort of proved my point the daughter had moved out of state to arizona for fire years before his own see your father twice yeah the records premise was that they didn't have that the jury didn't have to treat the mother the daughter the same but the would have to admit that what this jury had to look to was at the time of death all the evidence was a path of time all three of these people had a close relationship instruction said you have to presume that this is stain some substantial peculiar