From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Epping v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
Illinois Court of Appeals
315 Ill. App. 3d 1069 (2000)
Facts
Nancy Epping (plaintiff) was injured in a car crash when a vehicle driven by an employee of Commonwealth Edison Company (defendant) ran into a stopped car, forcing it into a head-on collision with Epping’s car. Epping suffered severe injuries to her leg, hip, and pelvis, and a broken wrist. As a result of her injuries, Epping needed at least 32 surgeries. Even after those surgeries, Epping suffered from a condition known as flail leg because part of her tibia bone had to be removed, which meant that her leg could not support any weight and could turn in any direction. Epping lost her ability to drive a car and had difficulty moving around in her wheelchair because her wrist joint had been fixed in place. Epping’s leg and foot were also physically deformed, and her doctors stated that her leg might need to be amputated. Prior to the crash, Epping was a part-time teacher at a community college, the executive director of a museum, and the president of a museum conference. Epping sued Edison, and Edison admitted liability. The case proceeded to trial over the issue of damages. After the trial, the jury awarded Epping $4.5 million in past and future economic damages and $9 million for noneconomic damages including disability, disfigurement, and past and future pain and suffering. Edison appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wolfson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
