Background
Marina Maestas was injured when her car collided at a Wheaton railroad crossing with a Union Pacific ballast regulator operated by employee Eric Johnsen. The crossing gates had risen after another maintenance vehicle passed, even though the ballast regulator was approaching behind it. Marina later died, and her daughter, Jade Maestas, acting as executor of Marina’s estate, pursued survival and wrongful-death claims against Union Pacific and Johnsen.
After a two-week trial, the jury found defendants negligent but rejected the estate’s claims of willful and wanton conduct. It awarded $1.9 million in survival and wrongful-death damages, subject to a 38% reduction for Marina’s contributory negligence. The estate sought a new trial, challenging the damages award and several evidentiary, instructional, and closing-argument rulings. The circuit court denied that motion.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict and the denial of a new trial. It held that the noneconomic-damages award was not manifestly inadequate. The jury was entitled to assess the evidence concerning Marina’s pain and suffering, disability, and her daughter’s loss, and the award did not require judicial interference.
The court also concluded that admitting the videotaped discovery deposition of defendants’ controlled medical expert was error but harmless under the circumstances. It found no reversible error in the instruction based on section 11-1201 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, defendants’ closing argument under the challenged motions in limine, or the testimony concerning whether Jade sought grief counseling. None of the asserted errors, individually or collectively, warranted a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- A noneconomic-damages award will stand unless it is manifestly inadequate in light of the evidence and the jury’s role in evaluating damages.
- Using a controlled expert’s discovery deposition as substantive trial evidence was erroneous, but the error did not justify reversal because it was harmless.
- The court rejected challenges involving the jury instructions, motions in limine, closing argument, and limited testimony about grief counseling.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference Illinois reviewing courts give juries on noneconomic damages and comparative negligence. Even where a trial court commits an evidentiary error, a new trial is unavailable unless the appellant demonstrates resulting prejudice.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).