Court Opinion

ID: 9540282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:14:18.053158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:49.572391
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I am in agreement with the majority opinion except as it relates to the issue of damages. Upon that issue, I would reverse and remand for a new trial. In this case, the so-called “special damages” or out-of-pocket expenses amount to *774. The jury verdict of *1,000 leaves only *226 more than the specials, and that *226 has to compensate for the disfigurement, the permanent injuries, the pain and suffering — *226 for those items of damages as shown by this record is palpably inadequate. There is no reasonable relationship between the damages returned and the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Such verdict could only result from passion or prejudice or a misapprehension of the measure of damages. Under either circumstance, the plaintiff is entitled to a new trial upon the issue of damages only. See Rapp v. Kennedy (1968), 101 Ill. App. 2d 82, 242 N.E.2d 11; See generally 11 A.L.R.3d 370.