King v. City of Chicago

• fullCitation: King v. City of Chicago, 202 N.E.2d 839, 53 Ill.App.2d 484 (Ill. App. 1964)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1964
• Citation: 53 Ill.App.2d 484,202 N.E.2d 839
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 49627
• Parties: Earlene KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 839

202 N.E.2d 839

53 Ill.App.2d 484

Earlene KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 49627.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.

Dec. 1, 1964.

Arthur S. Gomberg, Chicago, Samuel Nineberg, Chicago, of counsel for appellant.

John C. Melaniphy, Corp. Counsel, Chicago, Sydney R. Drebin, Harry H. Pollack, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of counsel, for appellee.

BURKE, Presiding Justice.

This was an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of a fall on a public sidewalk. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $1,000 for plaintiff, although she requested $65,000 in damages and although her medical evidence indicates that she would have been entitled to substantially more than $1,000 if she proved that defendant was liable. Plaintiff's post trial motion for a new trial on the question of damages alone was denied. The denial of the motion was based on the fact that the trial judge was of the opinion that 'the proof as to liability was extremely thin and the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,000 was a compromise of liability against damages and that therefore (citing cases), while a complete new trial, if requested, would have been proper, a new trial limited to damages only was not.' Plaintiff appeals from this ruling on the ground that, since the jury in fact found defendant liable as charged, a new trial as to damages alone was therefore proper since her medical evidence was uncontradicted and shows that she was entitled to substantially more than $1,000.

Plaintiff's praecipe for record on appeal requested, and the trial judge certified, only that part of the evidence concerning the question of damages. The record consequently contains no evidence relating to the question of defendant's liability.

It is well settled that a court is not justified in ordering a new trial on damages alone where it appears that the damages awarded by the jury were the result of a compromise on the question of liability. Paul Harris Furniture Co. v. Morse, 10 Ill.2d 28, 139 N.E.2d 275; Kinsell v. Hawthorne, 27 Ill.App.2d 314, 169 N.E.2d 678. Where, on the other hand, the record shows that there was enough evidence for a jury to find a defendant liable then the court may order a new trial on the question of damages alone where it appears that the jury improperly assessed the amount of the damages. Thus, if the trial court here was in error in denying plaintiff's post trial motion for a new trial on the question of damages alone, it could have been only because plaintiff had presented enough evidence at trial to enable the jury to find defendant liable, but that the jury improperly assessed the amount of the damages.

Since the trial court's ruling on plaintiff's motion was based on the fact that he felt that the jury's verdict was the result of a compromise of liability against damages, it was incumbent upon pl...