Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Nauss - 226 Ill. App. 3d 1014, 168 Ill. Dec. 887, 590 N.E.2d 524 (1992)

Rule:

The fact that the jury was less than generous does not necessarily mean that its award is legally or palpably inadequate. If there appears to be evidence suggesting a genuine conflict as to the legitimacy of the expenses sought, then the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed on review.

Facts:

Defendant lessee entered into a three-year lease with the plaintiff lessor’s predecessor for space located in a mall. Soon thereafter, the space next to the defendant lessee was leased and used as a competing restaurant. The defendant lessee soon vacated the premises without prior notice to the plaintiff lessor and did not pay rent thereafter. The plaintiff lessor filed suit against the defendant lessee for past rent. The defendant lessee filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff lessor breached the quiet enjoyment clause of the lease and asserted the affirmative defense of constructive eviction. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff lessor on its complaint and on the defendant lessee's counterclaim. Defendant lessee appealed, contending that the jury verdict must be reversed because, although in favor of plaintiff, it was for an amount substantially less than the amount prayed for by plaintiff. Defendant suggested that the uncontroverted evidence supported judgment in his favor. 

Issue:

Were the jury verdicts in favor of plaintiff on the complaint and against defendant on his counterclaim against the manifest weight of the evidence? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the evidence supported the jury's award of damages. The court held that the mere fact that verdicts were returned for a sum less than that requested by the lessor did not mean that the award was legally or palpably inadequate and was not a basis for reversal. The court further held that the lessee waived his argument that the verdict on the counterclaim was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because he did not raise it in his post-trial motion and that the argument was without merit.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates