## Facts

- A school bus driven by First Student’s employee rear-ended Vincent Donnellan’s cargo van on February 11, 2002.
- Donnellan alleged the collision caused permanent physical, cognitive, and psychological injuries; he had no prior adverse health conditions.
- Donnellan sued First Student and the driver for negligence; before trial, the driver was dismissed and First Student admitted negligence.
- Trial proceeded only on causation and damages.
- The court admitted a 4.5-minute “day-in-the-life” video showing Donnellan attending and performing physical therapy, offered to illustrate claimed pain and limitations.
- The court excluded First Student’s surveillance video of Donnellan that was offered to challenge the extent of disability and credibility.
- After a Frye hearing, the court admitted expert testimony interpreting a SPECT brain scan offered as evidence of organic brain injury consistent with claimed deficits.
- A jury awarded Donnellan $6 million in damages; the trial court denied First Student’s post-trial motions.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting the plaintiff’s “day-in-the-life” video while excluding the defendant’s surveillance video was an abuse of discretion causing prejudice.
2. Whether expert testimony regarding a SPECT brain scan was inadmissible under Illinois’s Frye “general acceptance” test.
3. Whether alleged additional evidentiary and jury-instruction errors, individually or cumulatively, required a new trial, a new trial on damages, or remittitur.
4. Whether the $6 million verdict was excessive under Illinois standards for remittitur.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment and the $6 million verdict.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the day-in-the-life video as demonstrative evidence tied to witness testimony.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defense surveillance video based on evidentiary concerns within the court’s gatekeeping authority.
- The SPECT-scan testimony satisfied Frye because the underlying methodology was shown to be generally accepted; disputes about interpretive reliability went to weight, not admissibility.
- The court rejected remaining claims of evidentiary and instructional error as unfounded or harmless.
- The damages award did not warrant remittitur because it was supported by the evidence and did not “shock the conscience.”

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to admit or exclude demonstrative and photographic/video evidence; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.
- A “day-in-the-life” video may be admitted as demonstrative evidence when properly authenticated and used to illustrate testimony about pain and functional limitations, subject to safeguards against unfair prejudice.
- Under Illinois’s Frye standard, scientific evidence is admissible when the underlying methodology is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community; challenges to an expert’s conclusions or interpretive limits generally affect weight rather than admissibility.
- A verdict will not be reduced by remittitur absent a showing that the amount is unsupported by the evidence or is so large that it indicates passion or prejudice and “shocks the conscience.”
- Jury-instruction error warrants reversal only when the instructions, viewed as a whole, misstate the law or mislead the jury and result in prejudice.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a $6 million personal-injury judgment, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting a brief therapy “day-in-the-life” video, excluding the defense surveillance footage, and allowing SPECT-scan expert testimony under Frye, and further concluding that the damages award was supported by the record and not excessively large under Illinois law.


Donnellan v. First Student, Inc., 891 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)