No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net

The erroneous misuse of the Ford and Consumer Reports material was highly
prejudicial. In a long trial about often dry issues, the videos provided a dramatic interlude
that undoubtedly had a substantial impact on the jury. The citation of an article from a
trusted source like Consumer Reports, as well as the “attention grabbing” images on the
videotapes, went “directly to the heart of the litigation” and thus directly affected the
outcome of the trial. Rotolo v. Digital Equip. Corp., 150 F.3d 223, 225 (2d Cir. 1998)
(vacating jury verdict due to plaintiffs’ reliance on inadmissable videotape).
F. State Farm’s Evidence Disproved Plaintiffs’ Claims Of Universal
Inferiority, Confirming That The Only Way The Case Could Be Fairly
Tried Was By Looking At The Facts Of Each Individual Repair.
Because the jury was not instructed that plaintiffs had to prove the universal
inferiority of non-OEM parts, its verdict cannot be taken as a finding that all such parts are
inferior. But if it could somehow be read in that way, the verdict would be contrary to the
manifest weight of the evidence. See Hastings v. Gulledge, 272 Ill.App.3d 861, 863 (5th
Dist. 1995) (a verdict “is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite
conclusion is clearly evident or if the jury findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based
upon any of the evidence”). The overwhelming weight of the evidence at trial showed that
non-OEM parts could not be universally condemned and that the only way to determine
whether they restored a policyholder’s vehicle to its pre-loss condition was to look at the
individual facts and circumstances of each repair.
State Farm’s evidence showed that there were non-OEM parts that were as good as
OEM parts and that many such parts had been successfully used to restore vehicles to their
pre-loss condition. See, e.g., R. 9858-59, 11341-42; 10992-94 (eyewitness testimony that
-106-