|
|
|
|
 |
04/16/2008 APPELLATE JUDGE'S CONSCIENCE SHOCKED BY EXCESSIVE VERDICT By: David Slawkowski, J.D. The Third Division of the 1st District Appellate Court wrestled with the issue of excessive verdicts in Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co. Plaintiff's 46 year old husband was killed in a horrific auto accident, in which the Ford Escort he was driving was struck from the rear by a car driven traveling in excess of 60 miles per hour by an intoxicated driver. Decedent's 's vehicle, which was stopped at a signal, was propelled into the intersection, and collided with a van. His seat collapsed and he suffered brain damage leading to his death a few days later. Damages evidence at trial included the testimony of the Plaintiff/wife and that of the couple's 2 teenage children as to the closeness of the family members. In closing argument Plaintiff's counsel suggested that the jury award $2,000,000 for loss of support based upon Decedent's annual income of just over $60,000, as well as $25,000,000 for loss of society. The jury awarded those amounts. Among the issues on appeal was Defendants' claim that the $25,000,000 award for loss of society was arbitrary and excessive and out of proportion to the award for economic damages. Judge Greiman, writing the official opinion even though the other two Judges provided separate concurring opinions, pointed out that under Illinois law it was improper to measure whether a verdict was excessive by comparing it with other awards, and rejected following a line of cases in which courts reduced an award of punitive damages because of the ratio between compensatory and punitive awards. Nonetheless, Judge Greiman apparently knows an excessive award when he sees one, because the Court found that the $25,000,000 verdict for loss of society “exceeds fair and reasonable compensation and shocks the judicial conscience.” The case was sent back to the trial court to enter a suitable remittitur, with a strong hint that the Court “would find it difficult to deem reasonable a loss of society award of more than seven figures, in this case and would certainly find unreasonable an award of any more than one half of the loss of society award settled upon by the jury.” The Court went on to indicate that Plaintiff's failure to accept a suitable amount determined by the trial judge would lead to a new trial. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to Previous Page |
|
