Schranz v. Halley

• Decision Date: 09 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 3-84-0098,3-84-0098
• Citation: 469 N.E.2d 1389,128 Ill.App.3d 125,83 Ill.Dec. 243
• Parties: , 83 Ill.Dec. 243 William SCHRANZ, on his own behalf and as next friend of Kimberly Schranz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dorothy HALLEY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1389

469 N.E.2d 1389

128 Ill.App.3d 125, 83 Ill.Dec. 243

William SCHRANZ, on his own behalf and as next friend of Kimberly Schranz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dorothy HALLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3-84-0098.

Appellate Court of Illinois Third District.

Oct. 9, 1984.

Andrew J. Kleczek, Gray, Kleczek & Kielian, P.C., Joliet, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Harry Leinenweber, Dunn, Leinenweber & Dunn, Ltd., Joliet, for defendant-appellee.

HEIPLE, Justice:

This case has been tried twice to a jury. After the first trial, we reversed a verdict in favor of defendant because of an error in a jury instruction. Schranz v. Halley (3rd Dist.1983), 114 Ill.App.3d 159, 69 Ill.Dec. 883, 448 N.E.2d 601.

Although the facts are well summarized in our first opinion, they are uncomplicated and are here restated for convenience and clarity. Suffice it to say that Kimberly Schranz, a 7-year-old girl, was leaning against a second story exterior stair railing of a next door apartment. The stair railing gave way and she fell to the ground. She was injured. She sued the building's owner.

On retrial, the jury returned a verdict in the sum of $556.56 for the minor plaintiff. That figure was achieved by a finding that the plaintiff had suffered damages in the sum of $1,391.40 for her "medical bills as presented." This latter figure was reduced by 60% which was the degree of negligence the jury attributed to the plaintiff.

Once again, we reverse and remand.

We reverse because the jury, although this time finding for the plaintiff, found the plaintiff's damages to be limited to the exact penny of the medical bills. So that this finding could not be misunderstood, the jurors even pencilled in the words, "medical bills as presented" on the verdict form. The element of pain and suffering was totally discounted. If damages awarded are manifestly inadequate or if an important element of the damages has been overlooked, then the reviewing court may order a new trial. (Stamat v. Merry (1st Dist.1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 445, 33 Ill.Dec. 808, 397 N.E.2d 141.) To determine whether damages are inadequate, the record as a whole must be considered. Potter v. Rodrick (3rd Dist.1979), 77 Ill.App.3d 7, 32 Ill.Dec. 516, 395 N.E.2d 746.

While the testimony regarding the less tangible elements of damages was somewhat scanty, it is clear from the record that a verdict reflecting only the amount of medical expenses is palpably inadequate. As to other possible elements such as disability and future pain and suffering, we defer to the jury. There was considerable testimony that Kimberly had made a complete recovery. Furthermore, the only possible lingering effects testified to were Kimberly's headaches. However, these complaints are entirely subjective. Thus, we are reluctant to substitute our judgment for the jury as to these elements. (Bledsoe v. Amiel (1st Dist.1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 54, 14 Ill.Dec. 754, 372 N.E.2d 1033.) Nonetheless, a new trial is required. The jury's failure to award damages for past pain and suffering finds no support in the record. Kimberly suffered a basal skull fracture, a concusion and cerebral contusions. She was hospitalized for a week. Dr. McCoy testified that the injuries suffered were consistent with a diagnosis of pain. Kimberly testified that she experienced headaches and double vision for a month after she was released from the hospital. Neither witness was contradicted on these points. While we believe it was within the province of the jury to reject a finding of future pain and suffering due to a lack of objective symptoms, the experiencing of pain is such an obvious and natural result of the injury suffered here that a failure to award damages therefor constitutes reversible error.

Numerous cases mandate reversal where the jury has ignored elements of damages. In Kelly v. Reynolds (4th Dist.1971), 130 Ill.App.2d 1098, 271 N.E.2d 370, plaintiff was awarded a verdict of medical expenses only. The nature and extent of the injuries (significant...