Reidelberger v. Highland Body Shop, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1981
• Docket Number: No. 53051,53051
• Citation: 83 Ill.2d 545,416 N.E.2d 268,48 Ill.Dec. 237
• Parties: , 48 Ill.Dec. 237 Bertha REIDELBERGER, Indiv. and as the Adm'x, Appellant, v. HIGHLAND BODY SHOP, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 268

416 N.E.2d 268

83 Ill.2d 545, 48 Ill.Dec. 237

Bertha REIDELBERGER, Indiv. and as the Adm'x, Appellant, v. HIGHLAND BODY SHOP, INC., Appellee.

No. 53051.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 20, 1981.

John Dale Stobbs, of Stobbs & Sinclair, Alton, for appellant.

James E. Gorman, of Reed, Armstrong, Gorman & Coffey, Edwardsville, for appellee.

RYAN, Justice:

This appeal concerns the propriety of the action of the circuit court of Madison County in granting plaintiff's (Bertha Reidelberger) motion for a new trial. The jury, in this products liability case, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Highland Body Shop, Inc. The judge granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The appellate court, with one judge dissenting, reversed the circuit court. (79 Ill.App.3d 1138, 35 Ill.Dec. 413, 399 N.E.2d 247.) We granted leave to appeal under our Rule 315. 73 Ill.2d R. 315.

The plaintiff's 17-year-old son, Terry Reidelberger, was killed in a single-car accident when the automobile he was driving went out of control after passing another vehicle. The complaint sought damages from the defendant body shop, where repairs to the car had been performed some three months before this accident. Approximately one month before trial, plaintiff submitted a motion in limine to Judge Moses Harrison. The relevant portions of the motion sought to prohibit questions concerning, and discussion of:

"(b) The purported speeds of the decedent's vehicle and the vehicle passed by the decedent some two miles from the scene of the accident * * *.

(c) The purported movements of the decedent's vehicle in the Grant Fork Turns some five miles from the scene of the accident.

(d) The purported statement of Ellen Niggli, a nonparty witness, made two days after the accident to Trooper Loyet * * *.

The judge granted these portions of the motion, directing the defendant not to refer directly or indirectly by opening statement, question or otherwise to these items without first taking the matter up with the court.

Although the in limine order was entered by Judge Harrison, the trial was presided over by Judge Victor Mosele. The trial was marked by a great deal of bickering between counsel. The jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which was granted by Judge Mosele. The basis for the new trial was alleged violations of the in limine order. The judge, in granting the motion for a new trial, stated:

"This order was directly violated by the defendant in his opening statement when he referred to the plaintiff's leapfrogging movements not at the scene of the accident. In chambers, it was once again made clear to the defendant that speeds and movements of the car not at the scene of the accident were inadmissible. Subsequent to the conference in chambers the order was violated by the defendant with respect to witness Loyet, witness Niggli, witness Strohbeck, witness Stumpf, and witness Saathoff. Due to the repeated violations of the motion in limine and the court's direction in chambers, the prejudicial impact upon the jury was such that it was impossible for the plaintiff to receive a fair trial."

The appellate court reversed Judge Mosele's order, finding that Judge Mosele abused his discretion. We now affirm the decision of the appellate court.

Great deference is generally given to decisions of trial judges in granting or denying motions for new trial. (See Workman v. Goldford (1967), 86 Ill.App.2d 403, 230 N.E.2d 574; Warren v. Patton (1954), 2 Ill.App.2d 173, 119 N.E.2d 465; see generally 2 Ill. L. & Prac. sec. 792, at 769 (1953).) A court on review will not reverse the trial court's decision to grant a new trial merely because it would have come to a different conclusion on the facts. (See Swift & Co. v. Madden (1896), 63 Ill.App. 341; see generally 5A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1583, at 35 (1958).) The decision of a trial court to grant a new trial is an exercise of discretion which should not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown. (See Ervin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1976), 65 Ill.2d 140, 2 Ill.Dec. 333, 357 N.E.2d 500; Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Russell (1963), 28 Ill.2d 491, 192 N.E.2d 900; Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Roehrig (1976), 45 Ill.App.3d 189, 3 Ill.Dec. 893, 359 N.E.2d 752; see generally 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error sec. 772, at 215 (1962).) In determining whether that discretion was abused, the reviewing court will consider whether the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and whether the losing party was denied a fair trial. See Bradley v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1979), 75 Ill.App.3d 890, 31 Ill.Dec. 623, 394 N.E.2d 825.

It is plaintiff's theory that the accident was caused by a bent or defective rear axle which had been installed by the defendant in the automobile which her son was driving. The defendant contends that the bent axle was the result of the accident, which the defendant contends was caused by the manner in which the decedent drove the automobile. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. It is not contended, and the trial court did not find, that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. There is sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could find that the bent axle was caused by the accident instead of being a cause of the accident, and from which the jury could find that the accident was caused by the driving of the decedent. We must therefore consider, in our determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, whether the plaintiff was denied a fair trial.

The trial court granted the new trial because of the conduct of the defendant's counsel, which it felt constituted violations of the in limine order. An in limine motion permits a party to obtain an order before trial excluding inadmissible evidence and prohibiting interrogation concerning such evidence without the necessity of having the questions asked and objections thereto made in front of the jury. Thus, the moving party will be protected from whatever prejudicial impact the mere asking of the questions and the making of the objections may have upon a jury. (See Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Sun Oil Co. (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 64, 22 Ill.Dec. 826, 383 N.E.2d 634.) The ability to restrict interrogation makes the in limine order a powerful weapon. This power, however, also makes it a potentially dangerous one. Before granting a motion in limine, courts must be certain that such action will not unduly restrict the opposing party's presentation of its case. Because of this danger, it is imperative that the in limine order be clear and that all parties concerned have an accurate understanding of its limitations. This court must therefore determine whether the order in this case was in fact clear and whether the reasons stated by the circuit court for granting a new trial are indeed supported by the record. If they are not, the circuit court will have abused its discretion.

As noted above, the trial judge, in granting a new trial, specified the violations of the in limine order which he thought required such action. The first alleged violation occurred during opening statement by defendant's attorney, who stated:

"The evidence will show there were two cars there at the scene of the accident. These two cars had been, for want of a better term, leapfrogging down the highway. They left the Grant Fork area, and there were four or five young men in the second car; two young girls and Terry Reidelberger in the other car. If I can recall the sequence but first there is another witness named Dean Saathoff, and his wife, who was riding with him, but at one point, if I can remember the sequence, but the boys said they came up on the Reidelberger car. They tried to pass it about "

At this point, plaintiff's counsel objected, essentially claiming that the term "leapfrogging" violated the in limine order. Since there had been no changes in the in limine order at that point, the restrictions contained in Judge Harrison's original order were still applicable. Leapfrogging, in that it refers to vehicle movement, falls within the second in limine restriction contained in the plaintiff's in limine motion set out above. If the term referred to movements within five miles of the site of the accident, it was proper under the original order. Grant Fork, as set out in the motion in limine, appears to be located at the five-mile distance limit. The attorney's statement appears to refer to leapfrogging after the car left Grant Fork. If so, the purported movements were clearly within the five-mile limit. This was in fact the case when later it was established that the purported leapfrogging referred to movements one or two miles from the scene.

Even if the statement would have referred to movements at a questionable distance, previous comments made by the court just prior to opening statements would have led the attorney for the defendant to assume that his intended statement would be acceptable. In denying a motion of the plaintiff, the court stated:

"Each side is entitled to present his own theory of the case; that as I understand it, Mr. Gorman's (defense counsel) theory is the bent axle was caused by the impact, and one of the related factors was the speed, whatever it is, was of such force that would cause an axle to be bent in that fashion. I think that's admissible. I am going to allow him to make an opening statement the way he wants it."

In light of the order's restrictions and the court's comment, the defendant could hardly be accused of violating the in limine order in this regard.

The circuit court further charged in the order granting the new trial that the court's expectations regarding the order were made abundantly clear to the defendant in a conference held shortly after the "leapfrogging" comment. This statement is not supported...