## Facts

- Tiffany Anderson was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Saadia Zamir, pushing Anderson’s car into the vehicle ahead; Anderson’s head struck the steering wheel and her car was towed.
- Anderson sought treatment later the same day for headache and neck soreness; she received a neck brace and pain medication.
- Anderson obtained follow-up care through her university health center for neck and back symptoms; she received medication, physical therapy, and exercises for about six months, and a cervical MRI in 2006 was negative.
- In July 2006, Anderson reported left-shoulder complaints; an orthopedic specialist diagnosed a labral tear via MRI.
- Anderson underwent arthroscopic surgery in December 2006 and continued physical therapy until about April 2007.
- Anderson’s total medical bills for her treatment and surgery were $28,804.
- Anderson sued Saadia and Saeed Zamir for personal injuries; defendants admitted liability, leaving damages as the only issue for trial.
- Anderson presented treating-physician testimony that the shoulder injury and surgery were caused by the collision; defendants presented no expert medical testimony and suggested alternative causes only through cross-examination.
- The jury awarded $12,500 total damages, including $5,000 for medical expenses and $7,500 for pain and suffering.
- The trial court denied Anderson’s motion for a new trial on damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a new trial where the jury’s medical-expense award was far below the proved medical bills supported by uncontradicted causation testimony.
2. Whether a damages verdict that bears no reasonable relationship to the loss proved, or reflects disregard of a proved element of damages, must be set aside for a new trial on damages only.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order denying Anderson’s motion for a new trial.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to damages.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion because the damages award, particularly the medical-expense component, could not be reconciled with the uncontradicted evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A jury’s damages award receives substantial deference, but may be disturbed if the jury ignored a proved element of damages, the verdict resulted from passion or prejudice, or the award bears no reasonable relationship to the loss proved.
- When liability is admitted and medical causation and necessity of treatment are supported by uncontradicted medical testimony, a jury may not arbitrarily exclude those medical expenses from its award.
- On review of a denial of a motion for new trial, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing an irreconcilably inadequate verdict to stand.
- A new trial may be limited to damages when liability is settled and the error concerns only the amount of recovery.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial on damages because the jury’s award—especially $5,000 for medical expenses against $28,804 in supported bills—bore no reasonable relationship to uncontradicted medical evidence that the collision caused the shoulder injury and resulting treatment.


Anderson v. Zamir, 402 Ill. App. 3d 362, 931 N.E.2d 697 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)