Court Opinion

ID: 9721231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:52:51.494107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:24.140843
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN dissenting: The trial court awarded $25,000 for plaintiff’s pain, suffering, and loss of past and future wages. Upon the evidence presented, I believe this amount is inadequate as a matter of law. Plaintiff suffered a severe fracture of the right clavicle, a compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra, possible herniated intervertebral disc, a large fracture of the right temporal portion of the skull, multiple rib fractures, and numerous cuts and contusions on his face, arms, and legs as a result of his fall. Limited movement of plaintiff’s right arm as a result of thoracic outlet syndrome, inability to lift heavy objects due to back pain, and morning headaches are permanent manifestations of plaintiff’s injuries. As a consequence of his injuries, it was uncontradicted that plaintiff is unable to successfully continue his previous occupation of painter. Before the accident, plaintiff held a journeyman’s card as a combination steel and steeplejack painter. The record discloses that plaintiff was engaged in that profession when injured. This occupation had a totál package wage rate of $8.83 per hour at the time of plaintiffs trial. ■ The best employment plaintiff has been able to obtain following his injuries was working as a winch operator at $5 per hour for his brother who owns a tower-erection company. The record indicates plaintiffs accident-related physical handicaps make continuation of this employment tenuous. Although the evidentiary posture of this case as to damages is not ideal, the record does disclose that plaintiff earned only $3521.25'in the year 1971 as a result of 971 hours of employment. Realizing that painting is seasonal work and that no precise figure was given as to plaintiffs work as a painter before his injuries, if plaintiff had been employed as a steel and steeplejack painter for this number of hours in 1971, he would have earned $8573.93 at the then wages. The evidence disclosed plaintiff did not have, steady work in the wintertime as a painter but did work continuously during summers before his injuries. It is upon this inability to, precisely determine what plaintiff’s income was before his accident that the majority sustains the trial court’s verdict. . , . ■ It is apparent that there is a substantial differential between what plaintiff earned before his injuries and what he earned, afterwards. Projected over a 26-year work-life expectancy, it is obvious that the $25,000 awarded plaintiff is inadequate. It does not strain the concept of judicial notice to recognize the fact that the dollar’s value has rapidly decreased and continues to do so. The true value of plaintiff’s 1972 judgment for 1967 injuries, which contained an element for loss of future earnings, is greatly diminished when viewed in light of this inflation. The judgment awarded plaintiff cannot be anything- more' than a guess concerning plaintiffs loss of future earnings rather than a figure based upon reasonable mathematical, certainty in the proof. A judgment in favor of a plaintiff can be reversed when it is obvious that the factfinder failed to take into consideration the proper elements of damage clearly proven and awarded him an inadequate amount. (Wihr v. Bruno’s Appliances Sales & Service, Inc., 29 Ill.App.2d 145, 172 N.E.2d 633.) The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on the issue ¡of damages only.