The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled in Kroft v. Viper Trans, Inc., a case involving Cynthia and Mark Kroft, who sued after being in a car crash with Viper Trans, PR Rental, and Predrag Radisavljevic. The defendants admitted fault for the accident but disagreed with the plaintiffs about the severity of the injuries. The court found that the plaintiffs’ attorney made several improper remarks during the trial, which resulted in unfair prejudice. As a result, the court decided that a new trial should be held, and it should be in front of a different judge.
Another major issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs could receive prejudgment interest. In 2021, Illinois law changed to allow interest to be added to personal injury cases, and the defendants argued it was unfair to give the plaintiffs interest because the case had been delayed due to the attorney’s conduct. However, the court ruled that the law requires the interest to be automatically applied, starting from the time the lawsuit was filed. The court also upheld the decision to show photos of the car damage at trial, stating it was necessary for the jury to understand the full impact of the crash on the injuries, even though the defendants admitted fault.
The defendants also tried to argue that the law allowing prejudgment interest was unconstitutional, but the court rejected this claim, noting that other courts had already ruled on this issue. Finally, the court dismissed a request from an outside party, Donald P. Eckler, who wanted the court to remove certain statements made by the trial judge regarding media coverage. The court ruled that outside parties like Eckler cannot request changes to trial rulings. In the end, the court vacated the original verdict and ordered a new trial.
If you have questions about prejudgment interest or trial procedure, contact Michael Haeberle at mhaeberle@pattersonlawfirm.com.
