Cosentino v. Viloria

── Cosentino v. Viloria ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 250361-U No. 1-25-0361 Order filed April 14, 2026 Second Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ LISA COSENTINO, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22 L 2417 ) MARILYN VILORIA, ) Honorable ) Preston Jones, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Ellis and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We affirm the jury’s damages awards for pain and suffering and loss of a normal life over defendant’s contention that the trial court should have granted remittitur or a new trial. ¶2 This negligence lawsuit arises out of an automobile collision in which defendant Marilyn Viloria’s vehicle struck the rear of plaintiff Lisa Cosentino’s vehicle. Defendant admitted negligence and, following trial, a jury awarded plaintiff $2,562,417.92 in damages, consisting of $1,614,808.96 for pain and suffering, $885,000 for loss of a normal life, and $62,608.96 in No. 1-25-0361 stipulated medical expenses. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court should have granted remittitur or a new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 A. Pleadings ¶5 Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that on March 31, 2021, she “was parked in her motor vehicle with her [left] arm extended out of her driver’s side window using a drive-through ATM” at a bank in Niles. Defendant’s vehicle struck the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact bent plaintiff’s “arm backwards into an unnatural position internally deranging her shoulder anatomy which necessitated surgical repair.” Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s negligent operation of her vehicle proximately caused plaintiff to suffer economic and non-economic damages in excess of $50,000. ¶6 Defendant’s amended answer admitted negligence but disputed “exactly what economic or non-economic losses the plaintiff has suffered.” ¶7 B. Trial ¶8 The case proceeded to a damages-only jury trial that began on September 25, 2024. ¶9 The record on appeal does not contain reports of proceedings or a bystander’s report for the first day of trial. From the common law record, we can glean that on September 25, 2024, the court issued pretrial rulings on motions in limine and stipulations. The court also ruled on designations and objections to the evidence depositions of plaintiff’s treater Dr. Kevin Tu, plaintiff’s sister Toni Cosentino, and defense expert Dr. Klaud Miller. However, we do not know the substance of these rulings. The court’s pretrial order of September 25, 2024, says only that “[t]he court ruled on objections in