Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Magnani v. Trogi

Illinois Appellate Court, Second District · 1966 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurenew trialremittiturdamagesexcessive verdictnew trialabuse of discretiongeneral verdict

Facts

Plaintiff sued in two separate counts: one as administratrix for wrongful death and one individually for medical and funeral expenses under the Family Expense Statute. Although the complaint sought recovery on separate causes of action, neither party tendered separate verdict forms, and the court submitted a single form without objection. The jury returned one general verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $19,000. The trial judge concluded that the verdict did not reveal the jury's liability and damages findings on each count and granted a new trial on both liability and damages.

Issue

Did the trial judge abuse his discretion by granting a new trial where the case involved two separate causes of action but the jury returned a single general verdict that did not disclose its determinations of liability and damages on each count? Also, did defendant's failure to object to the verdict form before the verdict prevent the court from granting a new trial on that basis?

Rule

A trial court's decision to grant a new trial will not be disturbed on review unless a clear abuse of discretion is affirmatively shown, and greater latitude is allowed in granting a new trial than in denying one. Where separate causes of action are tried but a single verdict form leaves the jury's findings on liability and damages for each cause of action unknown, that uncertainty can furnish a proper and substantial basis for granting a new trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence suit tried in Peoria, Lena Ortiz sued Mark Dalton in two counts: one count as special administrator for a deceased passenger's wrongful-death claim and a second count in her own name for funeral and hospital bills she paid. The court sent the jury a single verdict form, and the jury returned one lump-sum verdict for Lena without specifying liability or damages by count.

After judgment, Mark moves for a new trial on the ground that the verdict does not reveal what the jury decided on each count. If the trial judge grants the motion, how should a reviewing court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that where separate causes of action are tried but a single verdict form leaves the jury's determinations on liability and damages for each cause of action unknown, that uncertainty can provide a proper and substantial basis for a new trial. Appellate review is highly deferential: an order granting a new trial will not be disturbed absent a clear affirmative showing of abuse of discretion.