Court Opinion

ID: 9721912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:12:29.870637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:29.194246
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE KASSERMAN, dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority for the reason that I find no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff s motion for a new trial. It is my opinion that the case of Kerns v. Lenox Machine Co. (1979), 74 Ill. App. 3d 194, 392 N.E.2d 688, is controlling. As stated in Kerns: “The issue on review is generally whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff a new trial. The decision on a motion for a new trial is a matter of sound judicial discretion. (Brown v. Johnson (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 76, 378 N.E.2d 757.) A reviewing court will not reverse an order granting a new trial unless a clear abuse of discretion is affirmatively shown. (Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Russell (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 491, 192 N.E.2d 900.)” Kerns v. Lenox Machine Co. (1979), 74 Ill. App. 3d 194, 196, 392 N.E.2d 688, 690. The majority relies on a recent decision of this court in Bradley v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 890, 394 N.E.2d 825, in reaching its decision and concludes that where there is evidence to support the jury’s verdict and no showing that the losing party did not receive a fair trial, it is an abuse of judicial discretion for the trial court to grant a motion for a new trial. What the majority has failed to recognize is that, as this court stated in Bradley: “Courts of review will not disturb such an order [trial court’s order granting a motion for a new trial] unless there is an affirmative showing of a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. [Citation.] The reason behind this well-settled rule is the trial court’s superior opportunity to observe alleged errors in the context of the trial as a whole and to determine whether the trial was fair to all parties and whether substantial justice was accomplished. [Citation.]” Bradley v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 890, 892-93, 394 N.E.2d 825, 827. It is conclusively established that contributory negligence of a plaintiff will not bar his recovery in a products liability case. (Williams v. Brown Manufacturing Co. (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 418, 261 N.E.2d 305; Kerns v. Lenox Machine Co.) It is my opinion, considering the totality of the trial, that the element of decedent’s contributory negligence was improperly injected into the instant case. The trial court in granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial recognized that the thrust of defendant’s evidence sought to be excluded by the motion in limine was the fact that decedent was operating his automobile improperly in areas remote from the locality where his death occurred. In its order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, the court found “due to the repeated violations of the motion in limine and the court’s direction in chambers, the prejudicial impact upon the jury was such that it was impossible for the plaintiff to receive a fair trial.” Not only did the trial court not abuse its judicial discretion, it correctly perceived the prejudicial effect of the jury being subjected to improper inferences and innuendoes concerning contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the order of the circuit court of Madison County granting a new trial.