Fitzsimmons v. Frechette, 3:21-cv-50295

Matthew Fitzsimmons was injured when his bicycle collided with a truck driven by Josephine Frechette at an intersection in Fulton, Illinois, on July 30, 2019.
A pilot truck escorting an oversized load stopped in the intersection, prompting Frechette to drive off the roadway onto the grass to make a right turn, leading to the collision.
Fitzsimmons suffered a head injury described as a concussion or mild traumatic brain injury, with ongoing subjective symptoms reportedly limiting his activities.
Fitzsimmons and his wife sued Frechette for negligence and loss of consortium, respectively.
The jury awarded Fitzsimmons $8,500 in damages, reduced by 40% for his own negligence, resulting in $5,100; the jury found for Frechette on Karen Fitzsimmons's loss of consortium claim.
Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, arguing the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence and inconsistent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Damages against manifest weight of evidence	Award is unreasonably low given injury evidence	Award is supported—evidence of injury was subjective/disputed	Award is within evidence; no new trial
Verdict inconsistency (loss of consortium)	Inconsistent to deny consortium if damages given	No presumption of consortium damage; evidence supported verdict	No inconsistency; zero-damages implied
Waiver of objection to inconsistency	Entitled to challenge post-verdict	Plaintiffs needed to object before jury dismissed	Plaintiffs waived objection by not raising earlier

Snover v. McGraw, 667 N.E.2d 1310 (Ill. 1996) (jury's damages determination is entitled to substantial deference; noneconomic damages may be zero if evidence warrants)
Stift v. Lizzadro, 841 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (jury can award zero for noneconomic damages if evidence is subjective and credibility is at issue)
Seaman v. Wallace, 561 N.E.2d 1324 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (loss of consortium is separate and still requires proof of damages even if liability is proven)