Court Opinion

ID: 9720783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:41:24.558344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.281121
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE QUINN, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with the majority in every respect other than as to the issue of whether the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent. The jury’s verdicts that Clifford did not violate the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act but did commit common law fraud do not necessarily conflict with one another. The jury could have found all of the elements of common law fraud were proven but that the damage sustained prior to delivery of the vehicle had a value which was less than 6% of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price of the vehicle. Indeed, the majority of the evidence presented at trial would support this conclusion. As the verdicts on these two counts are supported by a reasonable hypothesis, they are not “absolutely irreconcilable” and therefore the verdicts are not legally inconsistent. See Tedeschi v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 282 Ill. App. 3d 445, 448-49, 668 N.E.2d 138, 140 (1996). While I would reverse the trial court’s holding that the jury verdicts are inconsistent, I concur with the majority that plaintiff is entitled to have only one satisfaction for his injury. Therefore, I concur in all remaining aspects of the majority’s opinion.