Donnellan v. First Student, Inc. - 383 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 322 Ill. Dec. 448, 891 N.E.2d 463 (2008)

Rule:

The question of damages is specifically reserved for the trier of fact, and a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment lightly. It may reverse or modify a damages award as excessive only if it is unfair and unreasonable, if it results from passion or prejudice, or it is so excessively large that it shocks the conscience.

Facts:

Plaintiff motorist was driving his cargo van containing various tools and a generator. He stopped the van to make a turn. The bus company's bus rear-ended the van. The motorist was hit by either the generator or a power tool thrown about the van. The van wound up in a ditch. The motorist later went to the hospital and was diagnosed with a cervical strain. Thereafter, he endured years of consultations, treatments, and physical therapy to treat headaches, pain, sleep and vision problems, and had to work on regaining mobility. The bus company claimed its conduct did not proximately cause the motorist’s injury. After a trial, the jury awarded the motorist $ 6 million. The bus company appealed, seeking reversal of the jury verdict or, alternatively, reversal of the damages award and remand for new trial on damages or substantial remittitur. The company argued that the trial court abused its discretion and committed prejudicial error in allowing the motorist’s day-in-the-life video as demonstrative evidence but barred the company's surveillance video. The company also argued that it was prejudiced by several evidentiary errors and the trial court's instructions to the jury.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the trial court err in ruling in favor of the plaintiff motorist? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court found that (1) the motorist's day-in-the-life video, which was demonstrative evidence, was properly admitted since the danger of prejudice from it did not outweigh its probative value, (2) the bus company's surveillance video was properly barred from admission since it was not relevant to any issue in the case, (3) the trial court properly allow the treating doctors to testify about their use of a particular brain scan, (4) the jury was properly instructed, and (5) the jury's damage award was not excessive.