Court Opinion

ID: 9532263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:19:41.494873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:43.011263
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Petition for Rehearing The defendant has filed a petition for rehearing and we have allowed the intervention of Amici Curiae for the purpose of filing the brief in support of the petition for rehearing. The principal contention on rehearing and the only contention that we will consider in this additional opinion concerns our holding in the main opinion to the effect that this Court has not the power to disturb verdicts in Federal Employers Liability Act cases on the ground that the verdicts are against the manifest weight of the evidence, provided there is found to be an evidentiary basis of a submissible case for consideration by the jury. In this connection we feel it may be helpful to review the ease on which we relied, namely, Harsh v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Company, 348 U. S. 940, 99 L. Ed. 736, which resulted in the reversal of our judgment reported in 351 Ill. App. 272. It will be noted that we found that the plaintiff, Harsh, had made out a submissible case to the jury and we then found that the verdict of the jury was' against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversed and remanded the case for new trial. Thereafter, petition for rehearing was filed and for the first time the plaintiff questioned our power to consider weight of evidence in Federal Employers Liability Act cases. We then appended a supplemental opinion shown at page 282 and 283 holding that a traditional right of procedure in Illinois governing cases of this type gave us the right to pass upon manifest weight and distinguished the cases cited by the plaintiff on the ground that the cited cases pertained to directed verdicts or judgments entered notwithstanding verdicts. One of the cases cited was Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, 90 L. Ed. 916, 66 S. Ct. 740. We denied the petition for rehearing. Thereafter the plaintiff filed his affidavit in compliance with the provisions of 2(C) of Paragraph 75 of the Practice Act, waived his right to a new trial, and asked that the remanding order be stricken. In pursuance to this petition and affidavit, the remanding order was stricken. Leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Illinois, but Writ of Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court of the United States and resulted in reversal in a per curiam opinion which reads as follows: “Judgment Reversed. Lavender vs. Kurn, 327 U. S. 645, 90 L. Ed. 916, 66 S. Ct. 740.” Amici Curiae contends that the most that can be said for the Harsh decision is that the U. S. Supreme Court disagreed with our conclusion. The citation of Lavender v. Kurn showed that the Supreme Court of the United States treated our power to reverse and remand for a new trial as against the manifest weight of the evidence the same as a directed verdict where there is sufficient evidence to make out a submissible case to the jury. The Supreme Court of the United States used the following language in deciding Lavender v. Kurn: “Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear. But where, as here, there is an evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict, the jury is free to discard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with its conclusion. And the appellate court’s function is exhausted when that evidentiary basis becomes apparent, it being immaterial that the court might draw a contrary inference or feel that another conclusion is more reasonable.” Under the above holding we concluded that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Harsh case clearly denied the right to this Court to follow Illinois procedure and grant new trials on the basis that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. If this result provides “one brand of justice for one group of defendants and another brand for other groups,” as contended by counsel, we can only reply that we are following the dictates of an upper court and the result is not our responsibility. For these reasons the petition for rehearing is denied. CULBERTSON, P. J. and SCHEINEMAN, J., concur.