Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Duncan v. Peoria Yellow Checker Cab Corp.
Citations: 359 N.E.2d 1242; 45 Ill. App. 3d 653; 4 Ill. Dec. 290; 1977 Ill. App. LEXIS 2185Docket: 76-168
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; February 10, 1977; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Louise Duncan was injured in a collision with a taxicab owned by Peoria Yellow Checker Cab Corp. and driven by Donald R. Matson, prompting her to file a personal injury lawsuit. The jury awarded her $750 in damages, which the trial court upheld, prompting Duncan to appeal, arguing that the damages were inadequate. The incident occurred at an intersection with a "yield" sign, and Duncan admitted to not seeing the cab until the moment of impact. Duncan was hospitalized for 14 days for a soft-tissue back injury and underwent various treatments, including traction and physical therapy, but was not prescribed medication and faced no activity restrictions post-treatment. She later sought further hospitalization due to ongoing pain and was diagnosed with a cervical lumbosacral muscle strain, leading to a claim of permanent disability, despite conflicting evidence regarding her condition from a specialist who found no significant issues. Duncan's medical expenses totaled $2,462, with an additional $446 in lost wages during her hospitalizations. The defendants did not contest the medical expenses or lost wages, but the court emphasized that in Illinois, a verdict may be overturned if it appears that the jury did not properly consider the evidence of damages or reached a compromise verdict. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial based on the inadequacy of the damages awarded. The determination of damages is primarily a factual matter for the jury, and courts generally refrain from intervening in their discretion unless the awarded damages are manifestly inadequate, ignore proved damages, or are influenced by bias. In Flynn v. Vancil, it was noted that the court rarely alters jury decisions unless the damages awarded lack a reasonable relation to the plaintiff's losses. A precedent from First National Bank v. Szwankowski established that an award of $20,000 was deemed inadequate as it fell below the plaintiff's medical expenses and lost wages. Similarly, in Kelty v. Wiseman Construction Co., a $9,200 award was reversed because it did not cover the plaintiff's near $11,000 in verified medical expenses and lost wages. The current case reflects that the jury's damages assessment appeared arbitrary and disproportionately low compared to the actual losses incurred. Despite the defendants questioning certain medical expenses, the legitimacy of the main hospitalization costs was unchallenged. Consequently, the trial court erred by denying the plaintiff's request for a new trial. Although initially both parties suggested that a new trial should encompass all issues, the plaintiff later attempted to limit it to damages, a position ultimately retracted. Given that the liability was not unequivocally established, the court concluded that a new trial on all issues is warranted. The judgment from the Circuit Court of Peoria County is reversed and remanded for a new trial on all issues.