Court Opinion

ID: 9530860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:04:30.908475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:16.380234
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE BARRY, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. As the majority indicates, the question of proximate causation was left for the jury’s determination. The verdict returned by the jury obviously rejects the plaintiffs’ testimony concerning causation. I have reviewed the record and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial by the plaintiffs. Ryon v. Javior (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 946, 386 N.E.2d 936. The standard to be applied in this case in deciding the propriety of granting or denying a motion for a new trial is whether the evidence contained in the record supports the jury verdict by a preponderance. I agree with the jury and the trial court that it does. The jury and the trial judge obviously did not accept much of the plaintiffs’ testimony, and after reviewing the entire record, nor do I. Defendant testified there was no damage to either vehicle. Plaintiffs testified that they looked but did not recall if there was any damage to vehicles. No repair bill for either vehicle was offered. I fail to comprehend how an automobile accident which apparently resulted in no property damage could cause the allegedly grievous injuries complained of by these plaintiffs. The jury’s verdict was not erroneous. Therefore I would affirm.