show the defendants that there were numerous errors made by the trial court maybe you know themselves individually might be considered harmless but when combined together  had driven a truck previously for so for many years and essentially this is his testimony from our point of view was not anything that ordinary juror could not understand it didn't trajectories have reserved a ruling on motion lemonade and took it up again right before we started trial and it was at that point that he testified very shortly thereafter so no i don't i don't believe i toughed i objected to his testimony in tot before you even start what is your our best case for the proposition that professional experience is not sufficient basis for expert testimony well i think that the case may say  testified to in this case was not did not rise to level of expert testimony in other words he testified you don't have any problem with him on the basis of not being sufficiently experienced to render it didn't seem i think what you're saying is that would would give them more weight than anything else from a from a lay person with respect to a couple of specific points of mr brown's testimony specifically with respect to his testimony regarding the secretary of state see deal study guide number one there was no evidence that he was even ever had a c d l and illinois number two has basically said yeah that's what that's what truck driver study and that at trial of those the book was held up in front of a jury without there being a some showing that there was something in that book that applied to the issues in this  study in order to pass a c d l cast i don't know how many pages the book for a regular driver's license on appeal is but but the fact of the matter is there was nothing that mr brennan testify to from that book that was violated by by my client so just be allowed to say yeah that's what a truck driver studies to get a c d l and that's what he that's what he would have read it is irrelevant in prejudicial but he never said that in of the j m s say to me and he wasn't i don't believe qualify as an expert in that area number one and number two all he did was read portions of the safety manual to the times so up for those reasons we feel that with our position that mr brennan should have should have been a lot to testify at trial and that they would the specific objections that we did make during a test my should have been sustain the reconstructionist and essentially there was a along side bar during trial as to whether his report which is the i believe the police report the south america report to the initial i believe that if you use a documentary fresh recollection then you can read from it when you're done you can look at it refresh that's put down can you  opposition that he did that that should have been allowed in evidence either he didn't have a basis for that fun for that conclusion so it when i think when you when you had all of officer mullins testimony together  it becomes most of it i believe because of his report was not a business record it becomes irrelevant it should have been in this inadmissible and it should have been allowed to have a lot to testify to  damage awards to this case i do i do cite two or three or four cases in my brief just as examples and it's hard to i guess it's hard to  life expectancy of about twenty years of work expectancy of i think another four or five years and with his last wage a portion of that was i think two hundred forty four thousand dollars the remaining e a witness is not proper under rule two thirteen according to the language of rule two thirteen and two and i and i acknowledge that we do we were able to get some of that  evidence in in various ways but they're worth the way we weren't allowed to i think go explore get into any and get into more detail about some of those issues and specifically one of the that would be improper that was objected to was stricken from the record the answer was stricken from the record you know and then i was told to go on to a different area with his with his cross examination and they had was the crux of our case with respect to benchmark and although we were able to get some of the evidence in at trial it's our position that we should have been forced by the trial judge at that point where we were i was when there gushing was sustained to go on to a different area i should have been allowed to continue with that same line of questioning and get into it more detail with respect to the get in i would suspect that mr crewe was bad it was his job to make sure that the job was run safely to supervise his own employees he put himself in a position where he couldn't see what his men were doing he was down in the corner of the street looking at something else and he couldn't see what they were doing couldn't see where mr cole was although we acknowledged i believe at one point in this part of them nation that if it would have been improper to be in there for him to be in front of the wheels of the truck when it was where it was sort of put himself in that position as the supervisor of the air crew to not be able to see what his men were doing and also is that as to many of the issues he raises there was no objection and there was no showing of any prejudice there really hasn't been a response to that and i think our appreciation stand on at the at the end of the evidence during the course of the use of the of the report was done for various reasons to refresh and really at the end of the case and of the where you do have a cumulative situation here every witness that was talked about during that testimony testified at trial so there was played opportunity to exhaust any person has no idea pretty much what i'm talking about and that's what the that was the problem we have the jurors they have a complex mirror system on this on these trucks for a certain purpose big they've got backup alarms and things like that it was necessary to bring in an expert so the jury understood what the standard of care would be for a driver in a construction situation using one of these very large some like dumps and bet that's why the the expert was used it is certainly the type of information that is beyond the ken of the average jerk the archer just does not understand what goes on on a construction site with a vehicle of this size it was brought in for that purpose specifically yes to brenna motion in limine a file at the beginning of trial during the course of and the decision on that the court reserved ruling on that one that does everyone have an opportunity to respond to it no decision on their opening statement given during the opening no prejudice arising from his testimony because the thrust of his testimony went to the standard of care for the driver and the primary defendant the driver of the truck admitted that it was his responsibility to check to walk around the truck to check the tippit check to make sure it was clear to get into the truck to make sure that the mirrors were adjusted he admitted those things there can be no prejudice i should not be able to criticize the manual well as it worked out that was not purpose and we did not mr brennan never criticize the minimal effect he adopted certain portions of it and that was the only reason of but that was the only basis for the objection we stated that we were not criticizing the manual there was no further objection to the the safety manual requested was not the important thing and should big and should not determine what the damages are in fact he said that you you trawl collectively should come up with a a figure that you feel is reasonable and did you i did and if the jury responded to counsel's argument because they didn't give me what they requested i requested with three million dollars for the pain and suffering this is consonant conscious pain and suffering and was your honor and once again there are the that we made the request and counsel address that also on whatever i'm saying don't you know you can disregard then you find out what it is they in fact did they disregarded wh during the course of the event itself being run over by this fifty sixty thousand pound vehicle over the midsection and it will get only graphic but it is probably the world's worst wonderous ways of leaving this earth a terrible way to die and i think the jury's jurors appreciated what happened during those minutes whether it was four or five minutes well it was ten he was pronounced dead i think about an hour twenty two years of life expectancy he had three children had a mother and a jury of her this lived to ninety one certainly could have believed that he added even beyond the twenty two years it was in excellent health before this  they played does soccer he was playing even up to it the time of his death playing with the family very very close family his wife of thirty seven years did not speak english well and he really was the opportunity for her to communicate in society and after his passing the world became much much smaller he had a close relationship with his  daughter he had went for the money to buy the home in the area she moved in the area so she could see him on a regular basis in fact than see him on a daily basis he built the addition for her she had three grandchildren very very close as i mentioned in addition or your highness the the third child was michael the youngest and he was disabled and his constant companion was his father father he began to have as the jurors heard it pay any have many psychological problems because he was so close to his father i think based on the unique aspects of this particular case both has to pain and suffering as they have lost a society that the the verdict that was returned was in the reasonable range we went in obviously as to loss of society with the court again my name is todd schneider i represent the third party defendant benchmark in this case as i indicated earlier there are really only two issues that are directed on appeal towards my client of the third party defendants failure to train supervise and or use flaggers on this jobsite the crux of the motion it was said that the standards for training for supervision for safety practices in the construction industry are beyond the average teen of a juror it's something that is outside the scope of the average juror it's  most do not know the custom and practice in the industry as it relates to construction most don't know the labor union laws regulations as a result in a case involving allegations of construction of negligence it is necessary to introduce testimony and evidence regarding the appropriate standard of care the problem for the defendant in this case is that they never would testify as to that political standard of care understanding it benchmark employees did testified in deposition for example that it was their job to supervise for example but there was never anyone that was disclosed or anyone that that was qualified with a proper foundation to testify as to be a political standard care and in fact if that a political standard of care was breached this is what was missing from the defendant's case and so without that disclosed information there was no way for the defendant to connect the testimony leaves that's it's clear i was he not answer the question during the course of the prop he wasn't any i believe he was asked that question during the course of his deposition but that wasn't asked and there was no foundation laid as to whether or not what he did met the appropriate standard of care i understand that but was he not also allowed to further argue to the jury that crude basically i was responsible and failed to do what he was supposed to do  responsibility let's say let's take flight for example it was my job duty i don't know that anyone testified that it was their job duty to flack but let's use that as a as an example what you need is that in the abstract doesn't give you very much information what is the answer standard say with regard to how long you have to post somebody there what is the n c standard say or the osha standard say with how well wrong that person is supposed to be there whether it's an open site or close  never laid a foundation as to what is the appropriate standard of care it's one good thing to say this was my responsibility it's there was never any testimony as to whether or not he met that responsibility or whether that responsibility was breached because there was no juror so we're talking about the construction industry so you're going to need somebody whether it's somebody who's been in the construction industry for twenty years to say i've been working in construction for twenty years i know what the customer practices in the industry therefore i can offer testimony as to what is the custom perhaps in the industry and offer opinions in that regard that was not done in this case you have any say the structure that needed expertise here but i think i think just the opposite is true  here well i think anytime that you have you have a subject matter that is beyond me keen of the average jerk that's when you need expert testimony whether it be somebody who was retained as a liability expert such as dentis everybody drives a sixteen wheeler not everybody knows that you will happen there are requirements in the c d s or other requirements but you have to check your mirrors not everybody knows that you have to do a walk right now everybody knows that you have to check the bedpan these are things that you do need expert testimony and that i think because i think mr brennan was as well qualified to testify to those things make the arguments but he wanted to in closing argument but beyond that he was also defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal because he failed to make an offer for in order to jury is in the best position to observe the witnesses to assess their credibility to weigh the evidence and to resolve any conflicts i read in this case hearing the testimony regarding the duties and oversights abilities of  truck driver those that were committed to by the defendant those that were testified to by mr brennan it was the duty of the drivers to conduct a walk around before he left the jobsite it was the duty the driver to check the bedpan it was the duty of the driver to check his mirrors before pulling away the testimony was that had the defendant done any of those things he would have seen the plaintiff under the truck and i believe he would not pull away and would not have run over  points but first of all with respect to benchmark i believe that we did not need to have an expert witness on standard of care we had the supervisor on the site saying it wasn't doing its job ok when you have that kind of an admission it was i was it was was my position that there was no need to go beyond that so if you have the supervisor on the job making that he didn't do what he was supposed to be doing that tells the jury that there that there wasn't