live with his children he tried it he did the briefs he did the post trial motions i don't have that cumulative knowledge but i have certainly done my very best to review this case and  firm in my belief that this case should be reversed in the trial court judgment should be reinstated others three topics that i would like to discuss one question deals with one issue deals with  jury one issue deals with relevance and the standard of review and on the standard of review i believe it's very clear that the court of appeals misapplied the statute in its opinion but starting with the jury verdict itself the court of appeals never tells us why twelve laypeople in a rear end collision case are with their own life experiences aren't able to determine who's credible and aren't able to determine causation i firmly believe that if all of us went to a coffee shop in our home towns the small arning and told the people there about this case all of those people would ask are there pictures and can we look at them because they know pictures do tell thousand words as mr edelman said in his closing argument the pictures help tell the story they help tell what's more probable and what's less probable admission of evidence is discretionary as everyone here knows and the rule of relevant evidence is because the evidence have any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence and if the evidence is relevant under rule four zero two then it's admissible the trial court judge parker  properly exercise his discretion here the photos had a tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence to facts actually credibility and whether the impact caused injuries more probable or less probable than without the evidence there was nothing so arbitrary or on reasonable in judge parker's decision as to be an abuse of discretion there are a number of credibility issues in this trial one credibility issue the plaintiff said that the defendant struck the plaintiff from the rear at twenty to twenty five miles an hour now i'll get to it in a moment but that's evidence without any expert testimony where the life experience of the plaintiff told him that a car was driving at twenty to twenty five miles an hour and that was admissible evidence here and that was what he believed the defendant said her foot slipped off of the brake and that her mitsubishi was fully stocked so that's a conflict of evidence and that's an issue of credibility a doctor testified in temp lawyer and temp lawyer said the injuries may or may not have been caused by the accident his testimony itself is contradictory and requires a determination of fact both parties said there were minimal damages mr peach said is truck was pushed ten to fifteen feet into the intersection the pictures show a different story and and the pictures are important and they are relevant on credibility they're relevant on causation they're both parties said there was minimal damage to both of the vehicles and that's exactly what the pictures  minimal damage causing credibility to come into into question relevancy it all in this instance is also related to causation and this is where we come in to different conflicts between the fifth district in the first district and actually within the districts themselves you're going to hear about two cases from this court the maple case which was decided in one nine hundred ninety two and pedre which was decided in one nine hundred sixty seven of before i get to them however there was a case in the fifth district in two thousand and ten called ford versus grizzle ford versus gri cited a previous fifth district case called from the border with approval and the first one versus grizzle cases there's nor rigid rule that photos are always in miscible or that expert  necessary for admissibility the critical question for admissibility in the ford case was when the jury properly really the vehicular damage in the photos to the injury without the aid of an expert and that's in my mind clear that people with life experiences can make that determination in the f case the photographs were admitted and the ruling it had six forty eight reads we find the jury could assess the relationship between damages to the vehicle and plaintiff's injuries without the aid of an expert and the court went on to say that the photos were introduced to show minimal damage relative to the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries further analyzed a number of different cases foreign analyzed the frona barter case they analyzed jackson versus side in which the plaintiff said that he was rear ended it fifty miles an hour and the photographs showed otherwise further also analyzed and reviewed a case from the first district called brainiac and the bahraini ak case is what the fifth district in this instant case relied upon because brainiac required expert testimony so we've got a conflict now between the fifth district and the first district the this case in the fifth district is wrong first it creates a conflict within the within the fifth district alone by its reliance on brainiacs first district case there's no substantive analysis in the appeals decision of each versus mcgovern as to any distinctions with respect to ford versus grizzle it mysen the appeals cour here misinterprets from the burger in that case there was a neurologist named pentel who reviewed photos but the court and from number said we find a jury could assess the relationship between damaged vehicles and injury to plaintiff without the aid of an expert the underlying appeal in each versus mcgovern the opinion i should say misinterprets jackson versus seaven in that case an orthopedist was not qualified to give an expert opinion on the severity of impact but the court said we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by admitting photos into evidence without expert testimony so they're saying that you don't need expert testimony in photographs relating to impact and that relates to credibility and it relates to causation those are the same holdings as in the ford case the brainiac case is at odds with another first district case and that case cited in our brief was an seo versus white from one nine hundred ninety eight and say it says when in that case liabilities not an issue but the photos of plaintiff's vehicle relevant to the nature and extent of plaintiff's damages they were admissible so the first district has conflicts the fifth district has conflicts and i submit that a jury can sort out these issues in this type of case and determine credibility and term and causation the one of the questions in post in the underlying opinion was that the court of appeal said that photos may have been relevant to allow the jury to infer relative speed of vehicles well the relative speed in the underlying case was not based on expert testimony at all and the just the life experience of the plaintiff disputed by the defendant but the court of appeals itself is talking about the relevance of these of these photographs the conflicts exist within the districts the conflicts exist between the districts i submit as i said at the very beginning that if we were to go to our local coffee shops and talk to people about this if we were to talk to the jury if the jury was not given the photographs and they came to a decision and we talked to the jury afterwards somebody on that jury at least one person would say why weren't there photographs why don't we get to see them because they know that the photographs tell an important story they are relevant and they are relevant in this case and i'd like to wind down if i might on the question of the standard of review the maple  case the court analyzes the author already intertwined authority between the jury the judge in the appeals court and their relationship to one another the journey issue is very important a jury in this state came to its determination candor the verdict that the defendant was not at fault that he the negligence wasn't excuse me to the causal relationship by the negligence wasn't established that's an important factor the jury said the defendant wasn't at fault for these injuries the appear was taken emotion she's made a motion for new trial was filed that was denied court can order a new trial the jury verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and it's against a verdict as against the manifest waste of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the findings of the jury are on reasonable arbitrator not based on the evidence in this case they were based on the evidence the parties in the trial said there was minimum impact minimal damage to each of the vehicles the doctor was back and forth whether there was a causal relationship or not the plaintiff sim clearly wasn't believed when he said he was struck at twenty five miles an hour credibility was it is you the jury determine the credibility issue in favor of the defendant the jury to determine the credibility achievement the causation issue in favor of the defendant and those findings are not unreasonable they are not arbitrary they're not contrary to the evidence the court clearly did not abuse its discretion in and missing the admitting these photographs show a tendency to make the existence of facts of consequence credibility and causation more probable or less probable and that's the standards under the illinois rules for a one and for a t original a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and that's clearly wrong because there's a higher standard of for a judgment not withstanding a verdict a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and only be limited cases were all evidence when viewed in an aspect most favorable to the opponent that's my client so overwhelmingly favors the movement that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand and that's the wrong standard for a new trial new trial standard in it stated in maple it stated in pedregon and it's stated in all sorts of cases is the manifest weight of the evidence and in fact the fifth district held that this verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence but didn't just say they'll be a new trial it said there's going to be a directed verdict here directed verdicts in judgments and ovi here are essentially the same in the context we're discussing them now there would be a no judgment notwithstanding a verdict were any evidence demonstrating a substantial factual dispute or where there's a c'est ment of credibility well there's factual disputes here there's an assessment of credibility as cases absolutely not right for judgement notwithstanding the verdict the in addition to all of this the fifth district held that there must be a floor on the damages and it held that the damages must be no less than the amount of the emergency room bills that mr peach incurred this again really takes away from the importance and sanctity if you will of jury verdicts because they are telling the jury that you're not to consider causation and it's telling the jury it's implying to the jury by the court that it's clear that if the emergency room bill must be paid then the impact caused the injuries and that's a that's a sensually a directive from the court and it's improper and it takes away the ability of the court a cumulative villainy of the jury to determine credibility it takes away the  to deal with causation issues these are disputed issues of fact in any case credibility and causation that's why we have juries that's why we protect juries that's why we have strict standards for questions of new trial and judgments and ovi this jury weighed the credibility of the parties it weighed the evidence and judge parker did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial this judge excuse me this court should reverse the court of appeals opinion and simply reinstate the verdict from in front of judge parker which is a verdict in front of the excuse me if i could rephrase that for a moment this court should reverse the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstate the jury verdict which judge harker denied the motion for a new trial and he entered a judgment in favor of my client and that's the right thing to do in this case and broader pictures of the no pun intended the broader pictures of the pictures of the automobiles they should be admitted because jurors understand him questions of impact their drivers they've had life experiences they've had friends themselves relatives who've been an automobile accidents isn't some magical mysterious bit of evidence that requires an expert on medical malpractise or products liability or things of that nature this is within the common everyday experience of juries and the fifth district went beyond its bounds in disrespecting the jury decision the picture should be admissible the opinion the fifth district should be reversed and the original judgment in i believe was marion county should be reinstated thank you for allowing these photographs to be used and common sense is generally what the persons in power have and what their opponents do not and that's about the only thing you can say that there's a common common sense has some scientific basis truly does not common sense once said the world was flat commonsense was once used to deny women the vote common sense was once used to discriminate against minorities and persons of color common sense has no meaning it has no scientific basis it is what you want it to be and it really doesn't belong in the le there could be severe injuries with minor impact he said that this is well known supported by the studies he said that in this case mr p that the vehicle was going forty five miles an hour twenty five or thirty miles an hour that you know yes and and in the light of that testimony the defendant going second offers not only sitting in the seat well enough to deny others i understand your argument as to whether or not minimal damage can cause significant injury i'm having trouble with your argument that and i don't think this has been brought up opening the door for the no there's no question there no nobody's arguing about who how fast somebody goes except what effect it would have on the injury and it doesn't have any effect on the injury there for sure rhoda but and the only testimony in the case  this case i believe it is it makes it clear that unless there's some scientific evidence that holds that the speed of impact is r that shouldn't be allowed it's the same thing as speculating about some other cause there is no bet there is no support for that and should be stripped and shouldn't be used and we shouldn't be allowing the juries to go out and find their own conclusions and we really should close that door and it's on page eight of our brief you testified that the the injuries could have been caused by this accident is that correct yes and it's also true that they may not have been caused by this accident is in fact correct yes that's true it might not have been caused by the accident it's a credibility issue right there the jury has the opportunity to believe either of the versions that doctor temple are provided if dr had provided only one version the jury is not required to believe the uncontroverted testimony of any witness so i think that is a a credibility issue but i bet they'd ask me why not use common sense we've all driven cars this this is going to be the only room in america where people might make an argument that pictures of an accident aren't relevant to issues of credibility and causation and it might be the only room in america where questions of speed is of relevance to yes use of credibility and  causation to an accident and i suspect everybody here who is a parent has urged their children to use commonsense at least on one occasion because we all recognize the exhibits during the course of the examination of the defendant when they moved into evidence i believe that they were but i don't know for certain judge but i believe that they were was there any objection if you were the shown to the jury i'm i'm sorry i expect that they were but i'm uncertain of that also and with there any objection to the admission in definition mission or publication that's right well i know that there was an issue on the motion in limine e and it was to not emotion many to preclude the pictures was denied i have the transcript if not all of us now but we know at least some of these issues that sort out before closing arguments yes yes i believe some so there's these pictures are relevant for credibility are relevant for causation and  world the doctor was a somebody some on both sides of the aisle or he quit vacated i think was the word used i don't think these are the kinds of case where scientific evidence is necessarily required but certainly it could have been provided in plain to scase call the authors in of these articles submit them to be an extraordinary expense but they could do it they carry the burden of proof and one of the judges mention the words burden of proof in mr rippling years argument so i will conclude and conclude with how i started the opinion of the of fifth district should be reversed and the verdict of the trial court should be reinstated thank you very much for your tension