award is against the manifest weight of the evidence only where it is apparent that “ ‘the trial court ignored the evidence or that its measure of damages was erroneous as a matter of law.’ ” Fieldcrest, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 607, quoting Meade v. Kubinski, 277 Ill. App. 3d 1014, 1018 (1996). The party seeking damages must prove its damages to a reasonable degree of certainty, and accordingly the evidence it presents must not be remote, speculative, or uncertain. Carey v. American Family Brokerage, Inc., 391 Ill. App. 3d 273, 277-78 (2009). Absolute certainty with respect to the damage amount, however, is not required. Kirkpatrick v. Strosberg, 385 Ill. App. 3d 119, 130 (2008); see also Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294, 307 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the plaintiff need only present
holding that evidence showed hewlettwhite florist shop had been an established business for thirtythree years and that the sale of flowers was not an uncertain or speculative business so as to preclude lostprofits award holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative holding that no recovery exists for speculative damages holding in dwi case that defense of competing harms was unavailable where threatened harm was only speculative and uncertain recognizing that damages are speculative only if their existence is uncertain not if the amount itself is uncertain