## Facts

- Helen Magnani (plaintiff) sued Arnold Trogi (defendant) after the death of her husband, pleading two counts arising from the same occurrence.
- Count I sought damages for wrongful death, brought by Magnani as administratrix under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, with any recovery to be distributed to the statutory beneficiaries under court supervision.
- Count II sought recovery for medical and funeral expenses Magnani personally paid, brought under the Illinois Family Expense Statute, with any recovery belonging to Magnani individually.
- The case was tried to a jury, but neither party submitted (or requested) separate verdict forms that would require the jury to return separate findings or damage amounts on each count.
- On December 21, 1962, the jury returned a single general verdict: “We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. We assess the damages in the sum of $19,000.00.”
- Trogi filed a post-trial motion for a new trial on January 15, 1963, arguing that the verdict, as framed, was only a wrongful-death verdict and did not dispose of the separate family-expense claim.
- The trial judge set aside the verdict and granted a new trial, while denying Trogi’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Magnani appealed from the order granting a new trial.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by setting aside the single general verdict and granting a new trial because the verdict did not clearly determine liability and damages on each of the two distinct counts?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order granting a new trial.
- The court held that a trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial, and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.
- The court agreed that the single, undifferentiated verdict created uncertainty about whether the jury found for plaintiff on both counts and how the $19,000 should be treated given the different statutory purposes and distribution rules for wrongful-death versus family-expense damages.
- Because the verdict’s form prevented a clear and workable judgment on each claim, the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering a new trial rather than attempting to interpret or apportion the jury’s lump-sum award.

## Legal Principles

- A ruling granting a new trial rests largely within the trial court’s discretion and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion.
- When separate statutory causes of action with different measures and recipients of damages are tried together, a single general verdict may be too uncertain to support entry of a proper judgment on each claim.
- If the verdict form does not allow the court to determine what the jury decided as to each count (or to determine what portion of damages corresponds to each count), the trial court may set the verdict aside and order a new trial.
- Parties bear responsibility to request verdict forms that require separate findings when separate counts require separate treatment; failure to do so can result in a verdict that cannot be implemented without speculation.

## Conclusion

Because Magnani tried two distinct claims—wrongful death as administratrix and family-expense damages in her individual capacity—but the jury returned only a single lump-sum verdict that did not clearly resolve each count or permit proper handling of the different types of damages, the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in setting the verdict aside and granting a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed.


Magnani v. Trogi, 218 N.E.2d 21 (1966)