## Facts

- Keva Richardson drove a car stopped at a red light at Interstate 94 and Clavey Road in Highland Park, Illinois, when a semitraailer driven by Jeffrey Chapman struck the car from behind around 2:00 a.m. on November 26, 1987.
- Richardson suffered catastrophic injuries and was rendered an incomplete quadriplegic, requiring extensive lifelong medical care.
- Passenger Ann E. McGregor suffered comparatively minor injuries, primarily a forehead laceration with slight permanent scarring, and returned to normal activities.
- Liability for the rear-end collision was effectively uncontested; the trial court directed a verdict for plaintiffs on liability.
- The jury awarded Richardson $22,358,814, including $11,000,000 for future medical expenses, and awarded McGregor $102,215, largely for pain and suffering.
- Richardson presented medical testimony and economic testimony from Professor Linke, who offered present-value calculations and a maximum future medical-cost figure of approximately $9.57 million.
- Rollins Leasing Corp., the truck lessor, was held liable for unsatisfied portions of the judgments under a Wisconsin financial-responsibility statute; Rollins obtained indemnity rights against Chapman’s employer (Tandem/Carrier) under lease-related provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether Richardson’s and McGregor’s damages awards were excessive and required remittitur or a new trial.
2. Whether the economist’s present-value methodology (including use of differential rates and ranges) was improper or misleading.
3. Whether Rollins’s statutory liability and its indemnity rights against Tandem/Carrier were correctly determined, including whether implied indemnity was available in addition to contractual indemnity.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed liability and held that most of Richardson’s total award was supported by the record.
- The Court found Richardson’s $11,000,000 future-medical-expense component exceeded the evidentiary support and ordered a $1,000,000 remittitur for that component.
- The Court held McGregor’s $102,215 award was excessive in light of her minor injuries and ordered a reduction.
- The Court upheld the admissibility and general reliability of Professor Linke’s present-value approach and concluded it did not mislead the jury.
- As to Rollins and indemnity, the Court affirmed Rollins’s exposure to plaintiffs to the extent required by the Wisconsin financial-responsibility statute, affirmed contractual indemnity in Rollins’s favor against Tandem/Carrier, and rejected or vacated any broader implied-indemnity ruling not grounded in the contract or statute.
- Disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, with damages modified by remittitur.

## Legal Principles

- A jury’s damages award will be disturbed as excessive only if it falls outside the range of fair and reasonable compensation or reflects passion or prejudice; courts will not reweigh damages absent an award that shocks the judicial conscience.
- Remittitur is appropriate when a discrete component of damages exceeds the maximum supported by the evidence, even if the overall verdict otherwise remains supportable.
- Present-value testimony may use differential-rate methods and ranges when grounded in evidence; alleged weaknesses generally go to weight and may be tested through cross-examination.
- Statutory financial-responsibility schemes may impose liability on vehicle lessors for negligence involving leased vehicles; any shifting of that exposure by indemnity depends on the governing contract and statute.
- Implied indemnity is not available to expand risk-shifting beyond what the parties’ agreement and applicable statute support.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court largely sustained a substantial catastrophic-injury verdict but ordered remittitur where a future-medical-expense figure exceeded the evidentiary ceiling, reduced a disproportionate award for minor injury, approved differential-rate present-value expert testimony, and confined indemnity involving a vehicle lessor to contractual and statutory limits rather than implied indemnity.


Richardson v. Chapman, 175 Ill. 2d 98, 676 N.E.2d 621 (Ill. 1997)