Vanoosting v. Sellars
2012 IL App (5th) 110365
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Vanoosting sued Sellars for injuries from a March 6, 2006 rear-end collision.
- Plaintiff alleged past and future pain and suffering, disability, loss of a normal life, and loss of earning capacity.
- Defendant admitted negligence on Aug. 23, 2010; damages trial proceeded.
- Trial prior to 2011 experienced mistrials; last trial began Jan. 24, 2011, with juror issues.
- Plaintiff sought to present evidence of no health insurance to explain lack of treatment in three years; jury awarded $30,286.46 with $0 for loss of normal life.
- Court reversed and remanded for new trial due to erroneous exclusion of health-insurance–related testimony and issues affecting damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of lack of health insurance to explain treatment gap | Vanoosting argues exclusion of insurance evidence was error | Sellars contends insurance evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial | Reversed; admission error required new trial |
| Loss of normal life award aligned with damages | Plaintiff contends loss of normal life supports damages | Defense cites double-dipping and minimal evidence | Remanded for new trial; issue not dispositive on this appeal |
| Impact of defense argument on double-dipping | Argument misleads jury about duplicative damages | Argument acceptable within scope of trial | Remand justified partly due to improper argument structure (not dispositive separately) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stricklin v. Chapman, 197 Ill. App. 3d 385 (Ill. App. 1990) (denial of new trial within discretion; prejudice standard)
- Duffin v. Seibring, 154 Ill. App. 3d 821 (Ill. App. 1987) (modify jury instructions for unique issues)
- Lounsbury v. Yorro, 124 Ill. App. 3d 745 (Ill. App. 1984) (avoid improper argument inconsistent with instructions)
- Stift v. Lizzadro, 362 Ill. App. 3d 1019 (Ill. App. 2005) (damages instructional framework for pain, suffering, and loss of life)