Court Opinion

ID: 9519580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:19:01.011672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:30.654523
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MURRAY, specially concurring: I concur in the majority’s conclusion, but not entirely with its reasoning. The issue of whether the jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight is not addressed by the majority. Plaintiff’s evidence indicates a loss of $372,498 as determined by a method contained in Federal’s policy of insurance and testified to by a certified public accountant from Arthur Andersen. There was no contrary evidence. I would reverse and order a new trial for the reason that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, I disagree with the majority on Richardson’s evidence deposition testimony. Richardson’s testimony by Judge Trafelet’s order of June 19, 1991, was admitted, but as Bradner’s former chief operating officer. The able trial judge admitted the testimony even though the opinion may focus on the ultimate issue. The admission of such testimony was in accordance with the modern trend. Miller v. The Pillsbury Co. (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 514, 516, 211 N.E.2d 733.