ESTATE OF OGLESBY v. Berg
946 N.E.2d 414
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Estate of Rosemary Oglesby sued Berg and the Chicago Park District for injuries from a collision involving a park district van and a private vehicle.
- Plaintiffs were Mrs. Oglesby, her husband George Oglesby, and their grandson George II; Mrs. Oglesby died in 2000, with the estate substituted as party.
- Trial occurred September 23, 2008; liability contested, damages addressed for Mrs. Oglesby, who was 60 and had cancer.
- Medical testimony showed neck/back muscle spasms and contusions with temporary treatment; Dr. Silverman treated, later noting improvement and cessation of care by Oct. 1999.
- A billing statement (Exhibit No. 10) covered September–October 1998 treatment totaling $1,410; it showed a month-long course of care.
- Jury awarded $42,000 for pain and suffering and $34,000 for loss of a normal life to Mrs. Oglesby’s estate, reduced 40% for contributory negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of sending Exhibit 10 to the jury requires a new trial on damages | Oglesby argues exhibit was admissible and relevant to damages. | Berg/ Parks District claim denial was discretionary error prejudicing them. | No new trial required; error in discretion but not prejudicial. |
| Whether remittitur should reduce damages for pain and suffering and loss of normal life by 50% | Evidence supports higher awards for pain and living loss. | Damages were excessive given the injury scale; 50% remittitur warranted. | Remittitur denied; verdict within the flexible range supported by evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallina v. Watson, 354 Ill.App.3d 515 (Ill. App. 2004) (exhibit-to-jury-room discretion; not sending can be reversible error)
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Rizzi, 252 Ill.App.3d 133 (Ill. App. 1993) (discretion to send exhibits; failure to exercise discretion is error)
- In re Mark P., 402 Ill.App.3d 173 (Ill. App. 2010) (harmless error when discretion not properly exercised; context-specific)
- Richardson v. Chapman, 175 Ill.2d 98 (Ill. 1997) (remittitur standard; substantial evidence required for high damages)
- Velarde v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 354 Ill.App.3d 523 (Ill. App. 2004) (damages are not subject to precise scientific computation)
- Clarke v. Medley Moving & Storage, Inc., 381 Ill.App.3d 82 (Ill. App. 2008) (deference to jury damages; remittitur only within flexible range)
- Diaz v. Legat Architects, Inc., 397 Ill.App.3d 13 (Ill. App. 2009) (remittitur abuse-of-discretion standard applying to damages)