for the four days of trout characterize the one presented evidence testimony that she was significantly injured as a result of a car accident that occurred in august of two thousand and eight the time of the accident she was in champaign urbana  work as an alum university of illinois which is very involved and she's frequently in champaign for the proposed purposes at that time she was hit by mr owens who was driving under the influence of alcohol and a high rate of speed she fractured her sternum and the injury she described in great detail during the course of the trial what that required that she had to jump down into pits to look at the look at the cattle and claim back out over these railings and that she was physically incapable of doing that because of the pain she was experiencing with the as a result  she also sustained very significant issue with anxiety which beings and while driving as a result of the car accident as a result of it as a result that is a did she was significantly limited in her ability to drive at night she testified to that as did some other family members and her former business partner as a result a ravine unable to drive at night she was unable to do the kettle purchasing which is supposed to be happening at the prime time of dots so she was her it was uncontr that she was not able to do the sec timothy that she'd been doing all of her life and that as a result of her inability to do that work she lost earnings as a result of that now during the course  this an escort but it was a sequel and and i just don't think there's any case star or merit in the idea that checking an asterisk see makes any difference in the fundamental underlying illinois principle and public policy that court said that you could not have a separate corporate entity as a plaintiff because you're not a foreseeable plaint mr owens driving down the road and hitting carroll kaiser one would not reasonably for see that there could be some corporate entity that could also sue him so based testimony that was presented throughout the course of the trial was that carol kaiser long sold cattle in from about two thousand until two thousand they had between twenty seven hundred head of cattle up to five thousand head of cattle never having had a time and she would rotate that sack of cattle and make money and she would change the timing of when she would go you know put the cattle in and out of the market based upon what the cattle pricing was at that particular time so it was a revolving door and she also testified that it's very important with that with that revolving door to always be in the market once you're out it's difficult to get back in so when she was so it wasn't easy for just a second i'm going to do the second half but we also know that during the time of the injury following the sex and she did still have some head of cattle i think she had none for one year but then she had a hundred or two hundred head but nothing like the two thousand to five thousand head that she position much more clearly then that supports the defense position and the says in our case there was an individual who was seeking lost earnings for a corporate entity entity was over in the pet store in the past or was delayed by forty three days the trial court granted the defense summary judgment in that case and said that those earnings were not compensable because it was a corporate entity however the court reversed that and said the summary judgment was not appropriate the appellate court in that case essentially said as a matter of law you can't preclude those damages which is exactly what my position is and that this has to go further to to a trial and to a jury that's exactly what my position is in this case subsequently other cases out of the state of illinois and no notably no no snow court in the state of illinois that i can find has found something inconsistent with sounds an awful or has relied upon was the sole shareholder she was the song boy and she was unable to perform and so her her she was turning through that corporate entity for her own personal performance that's exactly what the case is in the present cancer you're saying we need to be looking at the nature of her activity in fact it was her management in her personal activity involved in earning this money correct and it's irrelevant what type of corporation which checkbox is check should not be relevant what should matter is the level of engagement the and the the level of personal effort that's involved it will be a very different thing if carol kaiser one was claiming she last earnings in some company like bank of america with a lot of other shareholders a lot of other employees and it's hard to discern what what work resulted in what profit and what number and who is going to be able to take this money out this was solely carol  hundred thousand dollars consistent with the testimony so do your position that you're presenting evidence to support a claim that while yes of course we don't know what the jury would have done right but that would have been here to touch it certainly should have gone to the jury for them to make that determination got fat nuff of the market was right she sold exactly so exactly but she was this is where her personal effort and skill came into play because she chose which peter lights to go to she chose the fearless and we're going to produce the most productive most profitable cattle this was all about her efforts and not and those feeder lights were paid by her if they were not employees of that corporation she still was the only employee of a corporate entity the the not in the good years and the big years that she was out of the market were particularly good so she would have probably would have made like a hundred fifty and we know she made one hundred fifty dollars and because she did make one hundred fifty dollars a head and some of the cattle that she did actually still have so it's not speculation we know she she she did the the court did not discuss anything about speculation rendering the decision to direct the verdict and base its solely upon says not that it had to be earnings that they would personally have received from the corporation and because she didn't receive a salary per se that she wasn't receiving earnings from a corporation and because it was a secret rationed she was receiving tax benefits so she couldn't then claim to risk to have a claim to the money that was held by the corporation but that's a fallacy this is essentially a choice like if i decide to put my money into a cd or into a particular one of the comments and the defense brief was that she wasn't guaranteed to get that money well first of all that's not the standard that's not the requirement for having a lawsuit is plaintiff be guaranteed of having the money is there it's a different standard but also that would be like saying if i put my money into want into a mutual fund and i lose my money that it's no longer a loss to me that's not the she chose a financial vehicle to rest her money essentially until she was going to take that money out of her account a not a claim of injury or damage that's dismissed as a matter of law somewhere judgment was not appropriate and had to be remanded back to the trial court which is exactly what my position is in this case so i think that the judge is reading that one particular and that's a reasonable line for him to read and it's in the case but that's not the holding of the case that's not the result of the case and the practical reality of it that is the law in illinois which it's not been stated so far in any law cooperations earnings cannot be recovered in a person three hits and if a person is injured in the case in the end she this is the most significant part of her claim she was really injured her life was altered significantly th a testimony about this not only was her life faltered but she lost a huge amount of money because she was unable to do what she had always done so to just decide now the law is going to be different and she's going to be precluded from recovering those damages that nationally flowed from soli flowed from this car accident is not consistent with going to public policy or philosophy or law regarding what damages a plaintiff can be expected to recover proposition that if the if the individual has been injured and the corporate entities are essentially one in the same then you have to allow the recovery to happen you have to allow the compensation so boba also reaches the same conclusion that i submit the says not case stands for which is if there is a yes and an alignment of the entity so it's not a question of which individual contributed which capital or who to did well within the corporate entity which i do think complicates and muddies the waters but if it's a single shareholder single employee and all of the money that's going into that corporation or because of her personal efforts and those person efforts were  and that it was a four one k essentially for her retirement counsel does it matter that isn't says now we were talking about a clean time last earnings persons here we're talking about monster earning capacity i don't think it makes a difference because it forward i think there's a couple jurisdictional questions that are raised by the senate and indeed there are a couple murky areas first of all we have a situation we have a jury trial and we have a motion to reconsider a directed verdict entered during the course of the trial we don't have a classic closed problem motion that requests a new trial if you think about what she's asking in this case she's asking that the judgment that the directed verdict be reversed but it's implicit that the case be sent back for a new trial on this one element of damages so she's really asking for a new trial without asking for a new and if we look at what the law sets forth and twelve to twelve to eat when you have a jury trial and you have a jury verdict you have to file a post from motion and you have to request a new trial and that hasn't been done now keane is it a little different situation if you don't have a case where we have a summary judgment we don't have these bench trial we don't have a directed verdict entered on all the claims in the case disappears we don't prevailing party what we've got here is a jury verdict on on the issues of liability perspective punitive and the damages and we have one element of the damages that they're saying was not given to the jury and not cited and it's our position that promotion i don't see how a motion to reconsider a directed verdict is an attack on the verdict of the case and second even if you find it to be a valid post trial motions how does it ask for a new trial it doesn't it's implicit but it doesn't  attached a motion to leave to file an amended complaint the motion was denied with respect to the summary judgment and the court took under advisement the issue of whether i grant leave filed a complaint and that came at a later date and trial and they didn't do that now that doesn't mean the court can't dispose of this case in a firm of this case if we move on to the merits if you find that you do have jurisdiction there's a couple things i'd like to address on the directive thirty first of all i think this is noble case does applying here  what they said was you can't consider the corporate earnings but you can consider with it what the corporation paid to the individual and your question your honor about is this important about earnings i think it is the testimony if you hadn't you know way d to recompense for the damage she's done because it's a matter of being able to prove damages plaintive and idle and regardless of what we might think of that senator the conduct of that we have to look that claim with your client how are bad his conduct was is it's a win for all of the judgment that will never be made against this in that case i disagree the problem with this case is i think the plaintiff is confusing the damages and losses of a corporation with the damages and losses of her individually and this whole talk about retained earnings is wholly speculative where i would be up with all the corporations and how the treatment tax consequences they made as a special and deliberate decision on how to set up their companies and proceed forward and how she was going to be paid was she going to draw wages was she going to get dividends we're going to have bonuses all  these were just so actually facial injuries that were caused anyone normal person any harm but in this case he had a preexisting heart condition and it killed so the beating caused his your client hurt or badly without any justification he's a drunk driver why does it matter to your client the cheese or chips or serious some chips or ass it seems to me it should make no logical you saying she has to do that because she has the wrong corporate structure for income tax by god and therefore she gets nothing and my question is why should it matter to your guy why doesn't he take his victims as he finds them because in this and the jury decide jean was she really injured or was it this corporation i think they can figure it out he has to be able to demonstrate as in either case it been cited that he has a personal loss as a result of this  issue to the jury verses which boxes checked is that what i think that's true that it was a directed verdict based on the fact that there was insufficient evidence to establish she had a personal loss and it would be the lack of evidence related to the fact that our personal contribution i mean testimony regarding the fact that she basically was the corporation well that's true but but i as we pointed out i think the trial is getting it's almost a piercing the corporate veil argument that they're making about themselves and they don't themselves consequences as a corporation for whatever benefit it deserves to have and the i r s that's right but then they come back to my client and they want him to pay they want him to pay for lost earnings potential loss earning capacity based on this fiction that they've created to give them a benefit in one c cooperation is her right no other person can touch it and if they have a claim on a to be claimed it have to prove under some fear based on her structure now yeah what would happen if she die i don't know we only pure civil we've got shareholder operating as basically a partner in the s corp type environment we don't i'm not aware of any cases that would support that that approach so you can only use the corporate you can only involved with an s corporation not only do you get money if you are paid a salary type situation but you also will then get to treat that company this party going home based on the fact that it passed your taxes i think the distinction is valid i do think it comes down to a matter of whether they can prove their case based on who owns the rights to the the loss and here the corporation on the right thank money market fund or some other financial entity that choice should not preclude her from being compensated by any other plaintiff is in the state of illinois for the injuries natural flowing from an accident particularly an accident as egregious as this one direction of her accountant but a recount in testified that was her money her retirement account it's uncontroverted she absolutely sustained her burden of proof with respect to that issue getting to the jury and that's what we're asking we ask then and that's what we're asking now is that this should go to a be would be like saying ok so she would have had this money or she had this money and she invested it in that and the stock failed in this and the company went bankrupt for some of it invested in i b m when it went bankrupt so she doesn't jive with the end of the day lot that is completely contrary to public policy and it's quite a significant limit the damages of someone who was badly injured and had a serious financial consequences a result of that injury but she's not able to recover it because of a technicality that's not that's out the public policy of the state and there's no case law that says that they had to stink ssion is supported by the law there isn't there is no case that says that when mr i would suggest that the other states have followed that distinction that's simply