accident happened and then promise at the lamberts would have nothing to worry about and that he would they would not have to pay a dime of any expenses occasion by the accident in excluding the evidence of this surgical hospital rehabilitation takes quipping or expenses by on behalf of any person or the offer to provide or paper such shall not be construed as admission of liability and testimony with respect to the foregoing shall not be admissible in evidence as an admission of liability once and person and it's important to note that during that conversation at no point in time i went into effect on january first two thousand and eleven the language in il my rule of evidence for zero nine is settler but not identical and it provides evidence of furnishing or offering the promise of a medical cost or similar expenses occasioned by injury is not admissible prove liability or the injury i think be the apple way interprets illinois rule of evidence for  nine almost as an expansion of the statute by polluting the phrase were similar expenses we would take issue with that interpretation we don't believe the only rules of evidence can be interpreted as an expansion of existing walk if you review the committee commentary when the only rules formulated the purpose of it was simply codification and consolidation of existing evidence law well i think the importance is to realize that common law in illinois these types of offers of payment of medical expenses were deemed admissible so when the statute was an act it was an act and derogation of common law and there are certain well recognized principles and when that happens these types of statutes are strictly construed so only give back to their precise meaning in other words the possible case has to fit size in order to act in their nation of common law and to exclude all evidence that does not fit within the precise mission of the statute just taking the statement to prove why ability for injury but evidence of furnishing making other payments connected with the same injury the same context that was not i that's my why would the legislature cross that station well i think the purpose of the statute was to in not to discourage people from rendering again we believe that that statute has to be strictly construed that puzzle piece has to fit for size to within the possible and that if it's they were it's unclear the court should err on the side of mending the evidence not err on the read the committee commentary and the committee commentary pressley says the these are not intended as a substitute for the one or existing statute but merely as an organization of existing evidence shari'a law from all sources it depends on how you interpret the word similar are you or do you interpret that as being medical related expenses that are similar to the ones that are outlined there or interpret that's taken in the direction of other non wages was not intended to be covered by the s we cited in our brief them make cases that solving case in the handling case which are all simply intended to set out on the state of the common law before the statute was enacted meaning th the last in the second error which point it's complained of and which is the subject of the peel is the court's admission of certain photographs depicting the interior of the shed which were admitted into evidence we believe that the photographs were not material in other words the layout of the shot itself was not significant or were needed to be important for the jury to comprehend  wasn't important to the jury work nor was it was or to the jury what the shirt was made of the only issue was the shelf and how the plaintiff gained access to it also these photographs were not accurate they were taken many months after the accident they did not depict the shed in the same condition that it was time of the accident and they picked it contents and items in the shed which were not there tommy erickson and also we believe these photographs were prejudicial in that the photographs depicted the latter prominently and the splayed in the photographs and conveniently located in the photographs in an area where each of the parties but it's our position that you can't see a picture of this is worth a thousand words as they say you don't believe that statement in and of itself can undo the prejudicial fact that those photographs this is discretionary both by the  medical hospital expenses that the statute or the rule of evidence doesn't apply but in this situation the testimony of billy lambert and offer group was that the statement was allegedly main at hospital in carl what she understood mr conrad statement to mean and she said that she understood it to mean that he would pay for any anything that they had trouble with but this statement is in fact contradicted by her report deposition testimony whenever i asked her what she understood expenses to mean she specifically said hospital or ambulance so it's clear that in the context of the statement even though mr conrad might not have said i'll pay your hospital expenses i'll pay your medical expenses certainly the only expenses they could have in concert time would have been hospital or medical expenses to require a party who's involved in situations like this to expressly state i'm talking only about hospital  talking only about medical expenses were virtually make the statute i think impossible to apply what they w well your honor i actually believe that the only role that it's for and i'm probably encompasses lost wages because again that as you pointed out the statute or the i'm sorry the role does say in addition to those items provided for in the statute section eight nine doctor or physical therapist i think it could encompass things such as for you to work now ron i believe that the statement is covered by the statute which was certainly a fact and covers it in any of them i think the rule also would cover lost wages but the fact of the matter is at the with regard to the only the plaintiff's argument completely ignores the fact that the changes in the conditions between the photographs that were taken and the day of the occurrence which in this case it's simply with hard to  your honor in hindsight that is certainly what you should have done it didn't occur to me that at the time and i actually took the photographs with my client there in order to get an understanding of how the shed was laid out they didn't understand what i was talking i find i was trying to take a picture of the fire school that was in the south as well quite frankly your honor it didn't occur to me and i didn't even notice that the ladder was there until it was raised by the plaintiff's attorneys at the time the trial the photographs were offered and there was testimony about how the show was laid out personally i thought it was a little confusing to talk to my client in thailand solve the photographs the judge had the opportunity for the testimony you saw the photographs and he admitted them for the limited purpose of allowing the jur fact there was no ladder there and certainly and there was never any argument on the half of the defendant that there was a ladder there that you should have grabbed views instead eighteen even playing us argue in their closing argument that the ladder was it's certainly your honor that as a lesson i have learned the hard way now at this point but again i mean i think to suggest that the jury would have taken those photos and taken the information from the back and said well there was a ladder meeting on that wall  and you know that was negligent a mistake or not because there's a lot of i think that's an insult to the jurors intelligence that there's certainly no reason to believe that they couldn't understand the one limited purpose that they were told it's photographs complicity testimony very hard to assess the credibility of the testimony decide what happened we don't know from the general verdict whether the jury determined that mr coon dog was not negligent or whether they determine that mr cooper was negligent but in fact mr lambert they did not your honor and because of that there is certainly no way to know exactly what the jury's finding was based upon and the failure to ask for especially during that regard there's a presumption that the jury found favor the defendant all on all of the hospital therefore it necessarily had only be talking about medical expenses if mr coonrod wanted to speak to mr lambert after the accident he would have to go to the hospital because that's where she  was i don't think you can draw any more conclusions from one of them that's simply where the conversation took place because that's where our work mr lambert was arguing that he didn't know at that point what other expenses there could have been no one knew and nobody was injured at that point didn't know if you off work for a year or two years i don't think that the contacts to where the conversation took and in terms of the verdict going against the manifest weight of the evidence you know we did not make that argument we weren't making that argument in the heel based on the evidence