Bill Text: IL SB1904 | 2009-2010 | 96th General Assembly | Introduced

---

Bill Title: Creates the Full and Fair Noneconomic Damages Act. Provides that, in determining noneconomic damages, the fact finder may not consider: (i) evidence of a defendant's alleged wrongdoing, misconduct, or guilt; (ii) evidence of the defendant's wealth or financial resources; or (iii) any other evidence that is offered for the purpose of punishing the defendant, rather than offered for a compensatory purpose. Provides for bifurcated trials before the same jury in cases involving punitive damages, if requested by any defendant. Outlines the procedure for the bifurcated trials. Provides for court post-trial review of noneconomic damage awards pursuant to non-exclusive factors: the passions or prejudices of the trier of fact were inflamed; the defendant's wealth was considered; or the defendant's misconduct was considered so as to punish the defendant contrary to punitive damage award standards. Effective immediately.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2009-03-13 - Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Assignments [SB1904 Detail]

Download: Illinois-2009-SB1904-Introduced.html

---

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY State of Illinois 2009 and 2010 SB1904 Introduced 2/20/2009, by Sen. Kirk W. Dillard SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
New Act
Creates the Full and Fair Noneconomic Damages Act. Provides that, in determining noneconomic damages, the fact finder may not consider: (i) evidence of a defendant's alleged wrongdoing, misconduct, or guilt; (ii) evidence of the defendant's wealth or financial resources; or (iii) any other evidence that is offered for the purpose of punishing the defendant, rather than offered for a compensatory purpose. Provides for bifurcated trials before the same jury in cases involving punitive damages, if requested by any defendant. Outlines the procedure for the bifurcated trials. Provides for court post-trial review of noneconomic damage awards pursuant to non-exclusive factors: the passions or prejudices of the trier of fact were inflamed; the defendant's wealth was considered; or the defendant's misconduct was considered so as to punish the defendant contrary to punitive damage award standards. Effective immediately.
LRB096 08754 AJO 18886 b
A BILL FOR
SB1904 LRB096 08754 AJO 18886 b
AN ACT concerning civil law.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:
Section 1. Short title. This Act shall may be cited as the
Full and Fair Noneconomic Damages Act.
Section 5. Findings.
(a) The purpose of this Act is to ensure that individuals
receive full and fair compensatory damages, including damages
for pain and suffering.
(b) Pain and suffering awards are intended to provide an
injured person with compensation for the pain and suffering
resulting from the injury at issue in a particular lawsuit.
(c) Punitive damages are intended to punish a defendant for
wrongful conduct. Punitive damages are subject to certain
statutory requirements, must be based on the appropriate
evidence, and must be in accordance with the constitutional
jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States.
(d) Pain and suffering awards are distinct from punitive
damages. Pain and suffering awards are intended to compensate a
person for his or her loss. They are not intended to punish a
defendant for wrongful conduct.
(e) For that reason, evidence that juries may consider in
awarding pain and suffering damages is different from evidence

SB1904 - 2 - LRB096 08754 AJO 18886 b
courts may consider for punitive damages. For example, the
amount of a plaintiff's pain and suffering is not relevant to a
decision on wrongdoing, and the degree of the defendant's
wrongdoing is not relevant to the amount of pain and suffering.
(f) The size of noneconomic damage awards, which includes
pain and suffering, has increased dramatically in recent years.
While pain and suffering awards are inherently subjective, it
is believed that this inflation of noneconomic damages is
partially due to the improper consideration of evidence of
wrongdoing in assessing pain and suffering damages.
(g) Inflated damage awards create an improper resolution of
civil justice claims. The increased and improper costs of
litigation and resulting rise in insurance premiums are passed
on to the general public through higher prices for products and
services.
(h) Therefore, courts should provide juries with clear
instructions about the purpose of pain and suffering damages.
Courts should instruct juries that evidence of misconduct is
not to be considered in deciding compensation for noneconomic
damages. Rather, it is to be considered solely for the purpose
of deciding punitive damage awards.
(i) In cases in which punitive damages is requested,
defendants should have the right to request bifurcation of a
trial to ensure that evidence of misconduct is not
inappropriately considered by the jury in its determination of
liability and compensatory damages.

SB1904 - 3 - LRB096 08754 AJO 18886 b
(j) As an additional protection, trial and appellate courts
should rigorously review pain and suffering awards to ensure
that they properly serve compensatory purposes and are not
excessive.
Section 10. Definitions. As used in this Act:
"Noneconomic damages" means damages recoverable in tort
actions that are awarded for the purpose of compensating a
claimant for physical pain and suffering, mental or emotional
pain or anguish, loss of consortium, disfigurement, physical
impairment, loss of companionship and society, inconvenience,
loss of enjoyment of life, and all other nonpecuniary losses
other than exemplary or punitive damages.
"Pain and suffering" means the type of noneconomic damages
that cover actual physical pain and suffering that is the
proximate result of a physical injury sustained by a person.
"Exemplary damages" means any damages awarded as a penalty
or by way of punishment but not for compensatory purposes.
Exemplary damages are neither economic nor noneconomic
damages. "Exemplary damages" includes punitive damages.
Section 15. Noneconomic damages; determination.
(a) In determining noneconomic damages, the fact finder may
not consider:
(1) evidence of a defendant's alleged wrongdoing,
misconduct, or guilt;

SB1904 - 4 - LRB096 08754 AJO 18886 b
(2) evidence of the defendant's wealth or financial
resources; or
(3) any other evidence that is offered for the purpose
of punishing the defendant, rather than offered for a
compensatory purpose.
Section 20. Procedure for trial of compensatory and
punitive damages.
(a) All actions tried before a jury involving punitive
damages shall, if requested by any defendant, be conducted in a
bifurcated trial before the same jury.
(b) In the first stage of a bifurcated trial, the jury
shall determine liability for compensatory damages and the
amount of compensatory damages or nominal damages. Evidence
relevant only to the issues of punitive damages shall not be
admissible in this stage.
(c) Punitive damages may be awarded only if compensatory
damages have been awarded in the first stage of the trial. An
award of nominal damages cannot support an award of punitive
damages.
(d) In the second stage of a bifurcated trial, the jury
shall determine if a defendant is liable for punitive damages.
Section 25. Review of noneconomic damage awards.
(a) Upon a post-trial motion, a trial court shall perform a
rigorous analysis of the evidence supporting a noneconomic

SB1904 - 5 - LRB096 08754 AJO 18886 b
damages award challenged as excessive. Such analysis shall
consider the following nonexclusive factors:
(1) whether the evidence presented or the arguments of
counsel resulted in one or more of the following events in
the determination of a noneconomic damage award:
(i) It inflamed the passion or prejudice of the
trier of fact.
(ii) It resulted in the improper consideration of
the wealth of the defendant.
(iii) It resulted in the improper consideration of
the misconduct of the defendant so as to punish the
defendant in circumvention of statutory or
constitutional standards applicable to punitive damage
awards.
(2) whether the verdict is in excess of verdicts
involving comparable injuries to similarly situated
plaintiffs; and
(3) whether there were any extraordinary circumstances
in the record to account for an award in excess of what was
granted by courts to similarly situated plaintiffs, with
consideration to the injury type, severity of injury, and
the plaintiff's age.
(b) A trial court upholding a noneconomic damages award
challenged as excessive shall set forth in writing its reasons
for upholding the award.
(c) A reviewing court shall use a de novo standard of

SB1904 - 6 - LRB096 08754 AJO 18886 b
review when considering an appeal of a noneconomic damages
award on the grounds of excessiveness.
Section 30. Applicability. This Act applies to actions
filed on or after after its effective date.
Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.