— the statute requires only temporary disfigurement. See § 13-1204(A)(3). ¶ 14 With respect to the victim’s abdominal injury, Pena claims it did not constitute substantial disfigurement because “[it] was in an area normally covered by clothing” and thus did not affect her visible appearance. We disagree with this contention. The location of an injury can obviously be a relevant factor in evaluating the degree of disfigurement caused by the injury. For example, an injury to the face will usually be more disfiguring than the same injury to a part of the body typically covered by clothes. But we reject the suggestion that an injury to a location of the body “normally covered by clothing” can never be disfiguring. Cf. People v. Newton, 7 Ill.App.3d 445, 287 N.E.2d 485, 486 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, parts of the body usually covered by
holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation holding in a securities fraud action that a court may only find the lack of materiality where a jury could not reasonably find materiality holding jury could find small scar hidden by hair was permanent disfigurement holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff