1

Rule 23 order filed NO. 5-08-0185 January 22, 2010; Motion to publish gran

ted IN T HE February 17, 2 010, corrected March 4, 2010. AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS FIF TH DIST RICT

________________________________________________________________________ RIC HARD D. FORD, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 04-L-329 ) TERRY GRIZZLE, ) Ho nora ble ) A. A. Matoesian, Defendant-Appell ee. ) Judge, presi ding.

________________________________________________________________________ JUS TIC E W EL CH delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: The plaintiff, Richard D. Ford, appeal s from an order of the ci rcuit

court of Madison Co unty entering a judgmentfo r t he de fe ndant , T erry

Gri zz le , p ur su an t t o a jury ve rd ic t. On appe al, the plaintiff rai ses numerous i ssues, which we restat e as foll ows: (1) whether the tri al court erred in denyi ng the pla inti ff's motion in limine concerni ng prior accidents and injuri es, (2) whe ther t he tri al court err ed in deny ing the pl ainti ff's motion in limine concerni ng the amount of d am age to th e pla intiff's ve hicle , pho to graphs of t he plai ntiff

's ve hicle , and any argumentregardi ng minimal i mpact, ( 3) whether t he tri al court

erredin allow ing state men ts regardi ng sett lementto be hear d by t he jury , and (4) whether the tri al court er red in denying the plaintiff' s motion for a new tria l, direc ted verdict , or j udgment notwit hstandi ng the verdict ( n.o.v . ). For

the fol lowing reas ons, we a ffirm the judg men t entere d by the c ircuit
cou rt. On Ap ril 12, 20 04, the plaintiff filed a com pla i nt in t

he circ uit cour

t of Madison C ou nt y, alle ging that

the defendant

was negligent

when he rear-ende d the pla inti ff, thereby causing injur

y t o the pla inti ff's neck. The defendant admitt ed that

he was neglige nt in t

he2

operati on of h is mo to r vehicl e, bu t he deni ed that the pla inti ff was injur ed to the extent clai med. Beginning on October 9, 2007, a three -day jury trial en sued , in which the fol lowing evid enc e w as a ddu ced
. On Ju ly 1 2, 2002, at approxi mately 4:15 p.m. , the plaintiff' s vehicl e, whil e stop pe d northboundon Ma in Str eet i n Edwardsvill e, Il linoi s, was st ruck from behi nd by t he de fe nd an t's vehicl e. The plaintiff 's ve hicle was a truck wit h a hitc h on the back . The p lain tiff testified that he wa s stopp ed fo r traffic and n oticed that the defe ndan t's vehicle behindhim was not stoppi ng. As are su lt , t he pl ai nt if

f l et up o n hi s b rake s and d

uc ke d do wn in antic ipati on of the i mpact. The pl ainti ff esti mated that the defendant

was travel ing between 20 and 25 miles per hour at t he time of t

he coll isi on. The plaintiff testified that his vehic le only m oved forw ard ab out a foot as a resu lt of the impa ct. The defendant t esti fied that at the time of the acci dent, he was travel ing nort hbound
on Main Street

behindthe p laint iff. The defendant was dis tract ed while driving and was not looking at the road, and when t he defendant finally

lookedup, he saw the pla intiff's ve hicle stopped i n front of

him. T he de fend ant state d that h e did n ot hav e time to app lyhis brakes
once he looked up and saw the plai ntiff 's ve hicle . The defendant esti mated that

he wa s trav eling betw een 15 a nd 2 0 m iles p er h our at the time of th e co llision
. Imm ediate lyafter

the acci dent, both the pl ainti ff and the defendant looked over t

he vehic les for dam age. T he da mag e to the defe ndan t's vehicle was locate d on the front grill, headlights, bum per , rad iator , and fan blad e. The defendant t esti fiedth athi s ve hi cl e ha d so me minorpreexis ting damage bef ore the a ccident . The plaint iff's v ehicle show ed no visible signs of damage from the acci dent. The plaintiff t esti fied that he had t he wind knocked out of hi m an d tha t h e f

el t s or e a ft er

th e c ol li si on. Ho wever, the def endant t esti fied that the plaintiff did n ot com plain to him a t th e scene o f the acci dent about any phy sicalpain the plaintiff might have been e xperienc ing. The pl ainti ff di d no t go to an emergency room as3

a res ult o f the acc iden t. The plaintiff t esti fiedthat he had visi ted his chiropr actor, Dr. Brian Wals h, earli er on the day of t

he accident . The plaintiff had been seei ng D r. Wa ls h and other medi cal profession als for tr eatment for injuries r esult ing from two ear lier motor vehic le acci den t s,
one occurri ng in December 2000 and another occurring on June 8, 2002, jus t more than one
mo nth before the J uly 20 02 a ccid ent a t issu e on app eal. In the December 2000 accid ent, the m ost sign ifican t of the three c ollisions , the ve hicle the plaint iff was tr aveli ng in was "t- boned" byanother ve hicle travel ing approxi mately 35 miles per hour. The plaintiff' s vehicle was p ushed 35 to 40 fee t as a r esult . The plaintiff stat ed that

he had constant, s harp, stabbi ng pain from the accident , inc luding pain radiating dow n bot

h ar ms and his back, signi ficant neck pain, and pain i n his ranges of motion. The pl ain tif f's pain a ffec ted his sleep habits and daily activit ies. After the accident , the plaintiff
was treated by a doc tor, visited a neu rosurg eon, w ent to a pain management cli nic, recei ved injec tions and a nerve- blockshot i n his neck, and parti cipat ed in physical therapy. In January 2001, the pla inti ff had an MRI scan that showed degenerat ive dis c diseas e with a her niate d disc in his n eck a t the C 5-C 6 leve l. App roxim ately seven months fol lowing the December 2000 accident , the plaintiff wa s still expe riencin g pain from the ac ciden t. The refor e, in July 2001, the pla inti ff visi tedDr. Walsh for tr eatment, complaini ng of a bulgi ng disc i n his neck at the C5 -C6 leve l. The pl ainti ff's treat

ment with Dr. Walsh for the December 2000 accident last ed throughNovember 2001, when the plaintiff moved to Flor ida to l ook for work. The pl ainti ff te sti fiedthat at that

point he s til l had neck pai n. Dr. Walsh t esti fied that the plaint iff' s conditi on had improved, but he an ticipated that the plaintiff wo uld co ntinue to hav e chro nic discomfort

in his neck in the future . Upon retur ning to Il linoi s from Flori da in early 2002, the pl ai nt if

f was st il l e xpe ri enc in g ba ck and n eck di sc omfo rt , s o he re sum e d his treat ment4

with Dr. W alsh. T he pla intiff w as treate d by D r. Wa lsh ap prox imate ly 10 time s each mo nth in April, May, and June of 2002, and he was sti ll r eceivi ng treat ment when he was involved in th e se con d m oto r ve hicle acc iden t on Jun e 8, 2 002
. Although the June 2002 ac cident was less s evere than the De cem ber 2 000 accid ent, the plaintiff t esti fied that he r einju red his n eck in th e Ju ne 2 002 acc iden t. In the June 2002 accident , the plaintiff' s vehicl e was rear- ended from behind by another vehicl e trave ling at approximat ely

25 miles per

hour. The pl ainti ff braced for the acci dent andhit hi s head on the headrest. As a result of the accid ent, the p laintiff c om plaine d of neck and b ack p ain, pa in radiating dow n his ar

ms and midback, hea daches, and pain in hi s ey es. X ray s performed by Dr. Walsh indi cated t

hat the June 2002 accident had aggravat ed the pla intiff's inju ry in his neck at the C 5-C 6 leve l. Dr. W alsh tes tified tha t this acc ident a ggra vate d the p lain tif f's injuries caused by

the December 2000 accident and that this injur

y coul d cause the plaintiff pain in the f

uture. T he pla intiff w as still r eceivi ng t reatment from Dr. Walsh for these injuries when the accide nt at i ssue occur red on J uly

12, 2002. Dr. Walsh testifie d that t he plaintiff had visi ted him onthe morning before the acci dent on July 12, 2002, and that the plaintiff had star ted reha bili tati on and was feeli ng minim al pain on th e day of the Ju ly2002
acc iden t. Afterthe acci dent on July 12, 2002, the plainti ff again visited Dr. Walsh for a second ti me that day. The plaintiff complained of neck and back pain, headaches, and pain radi ating dow n his left arm. D r. Walsh testifie d at the tri al that he bel ievedthat t he accident

caused
an exacerbat ion of the plaintiff' s prior conditi on. Dr. Walsh c ontinued treating the pla inti ff after the Jul y 2002 acc ident, along with r eferring him to a doctor fo r nerve-block shots. Dr. Walsh test ifie d that at some point prior to August 2003, the pla inti ff's neck was back to the cond ition it w as in b efore the Ju ly 2002 accid ent. Dr. Walsh saw the pla inti ff multiple times monthly untilAugust 2003, wh en th e5

plaintiff again mo ved to Florid a to find work and atte nd school. Upon moving to Flori da, the plaintiff begantreat

ment with anot

her chiropractor , Dr. David Spargo, in May200 3 un til September2004. The plaintiff informedDr. Spargo t

hat his sy mptoms appeared aft er he was involved in an aut omobile acci dent in J uly 20 02. The p laintiff did not initially tellDr. Spargo of

the two e arlier accidents he h ad been involved in . Dr. Spargo tr eated t he plai ntiff for pain in his neck, shoulders, ribs, arms, hands , and back. The plaintiff al so complaine d of pain wh en lifting heav y objects. D r. Spa rgo d iagno sed th e plain tiff w ith neck and upper back stra in , a lo ng wi tha he rn iate d di sc atth e C5- C6 level, an d adv ised the plaintiff to refra in from lifting heavy obj ects. In July 2003, the plaintiff had an MRI scan, which confirmed the disc herniation and muscle stra in. I n September 2003, Dr. Spargo re ferred t he plai ntiff

to a
neur olog ist, who diagnosed the plainti ff with a herniated disc atth e C5- C6 level with nerve irr itation. At the tr ial, whe n a sk ed to co m pa re th e p lai nt iff's M R I in 20 01 w ith th e p lai nt iff's MRI in 20 0 3, Dr. Spargo stat ed that they were simil ar but t

hat the herniation in 2001 appearedminimal compar ed with the he rniation depic ted in 2003. Dr. Spargo t esti fied that if the pla inti ff had a chroni c co nditi on p rior to the J uly 2002 accident , the subsequent accident could have aggr avated t he preexis ting i njury . Furt her, although Dr. Spargo t esti fied that the pla inti ff's injuries were causal ly relat ed to the July

2002 accident , he al so opined t hat the plaintiff' s two earl ier accident s could have be en signi ficant to the pl ainti ff's injur

y i f the plaintiff had n ot fully recovere d from the i njuri es caused by those pr ior acc idents before the July 2002 accident . Dr. Spargo was unable to de termine w hat perc entage of hi s tre atment with the pla inti ff was for the July 200 2 acc ident v ersus th e acc idents in December 2000 and Jun e 20 02. The plaintiff

test ifie d that a lthough he did not initi ally inform Dr. Spargo of the ear lier accidents, his treatm ent w ith D r. Spa rgo w as relate d to all three a ccide nts, no t just the Ju ly6

2002 accident . Furt

her, t he plai ntiff

test ifie d that parts of

the medicalbill s from Dr. Spargo and Dr. Wa lsh that h e sub mitted to the jur y were not

solel y r elat ed to the July 2002 accident but we re als o re lated to th e tw o ea rlier a ccid ents
. In October 2003, t

he plai ntiff

visi tedDr. John Jenkins , a neuros urgeon. The pl ainti ff complainedof pain i n his neck an d leftarm an d hand, al ong with headaches . Dr. J enkins diagnosedthe pla inti ff w ith a disc herniation a t the C5-C 6 level w ith radiculopathy. Dr. J enk ins test ifie d that s ince other conser vative measures had fa iled to provide t he plai ntiff relie f in th e pa st, the plain tiff w as a surg ical c and idate
. At the trial, Dr. Jenki ns opined t hat the need f

or surger y was caus ally

linked to the July 2002 accident, but he also testified that du ring h is treat ment of the pl ainti ff, he was not
aware that t

he plai ntiff

had been inv olve d in the two earlier a ccide nts or h ad pr ior chr onic pain. Dr. Je nkin s t esti fied that if the pla inti ff was experie ncing pai n from earl ier motor veh icle acciden ts pri or to t he July 2002 accident , the July 2002 accident

would only

be an aggravat ion of the under ly ing condition and the plaintiff migh t have been a sur gical cand idate even befo re the J uly 200 2 acc ident. D r. Jenk ins ex plaine d that i f the re we re no changes in the M RI scans befo re and aft er the J uly 2002 accident , he would expect the exacerbat ion to o nly be tem por ary. Further , aft er revi ewing MRI scans of the pl ainti ff taken in bot h 20 01 and 2 004 , D r . Jenk ins te sti fied that the report s were essentially t he same. Fi na lly, Dr. Jenkins also test ifie d that t he damage to the vehicl es invol ved in the July 2002 accident would be rele vant in eva luating the pla intiff's inju ries, bec ause a pers on w ould be
more likely to suffer a d isc her niation from a high -spee d acc ident th an a lo w-sp eed a ccide nt. The plaintiff had cer

vical fusion surgery

in Flor ida in J

uly 200 4 to reli eve the problems i n his neck. After the surgery , the plaintiff' s pain r apidly decli ned. The plaintiff test ifie d that he no longer has p ain in h is arm s but th at he still h as m inima l pain in his neck and back . Both Dr. Je nkin s and Dr. S parg o testi fied th at the pla inti ff's prognosis after the7

surgery was verygood, with only l imit ed work res tri ctions , but tha t the pla intiff co uld exp erien ce s om e m ino r pro blem s or e xac erb ation s in th e fu ture
. The plaintiff returned to Illinois and resume d treatment w ith Dr. Walsh in September 2004 for ther apy and

adju stm ents to h is m idd le ba ck. Dr. Walsh te sti fied that he re leased t he plaintiff from trea tment for

the Jul y 2002 acc ident in January 2005 and has only

seen the plaintiff periodi call y since then. Further , Dr. Walsh s tate d that the plaintiff shou ld not return to heavylabor jo bs an d w ill likely need to con tinue c hirop ractic treat ment for the remainder of his l ife. However, in his treat ment of the pl ainti ff, Dr. Wals h never put any work or physi cal c ons trictio ns o n th e pla intiff. In M ay 20 06, the plaintiff was eval uated by the defendant 's e xpert, Dr. Karen Pentel la,
a board-cer

tifi ed neurologi st and pai n m edicin e spe cialist. In h er eva luation , Dr. P entella reviewedthe plaintiff' s medicalrecords , conduct ed an independent medical examinati on of the p laintiff, a nd re view ed ph otog raph s of th e veh icles af ter the c ollision. D r. Pen tella test ifie d that ph otog raph s of th e veh icles w ere rele vant b ecau se the p hoto of the plaintiff' s vehic le showed no damage and that t he gene ral r

ule in automobil e coll isi ons is t hat the
seve rityof the i mpact corr esponds to t he imp act o n th e ve hicle 's occ upa nts. Dr. Pentella also reviewedthe MRI films fr om both 2001 and 2003 and tes tifi ed t ha t she di d not see any sign ifica nt d iffe ren ce b etw een them
. Dr. Pentell a stat ed tha t the pl ai ntiff 's medi cal re cords cl early showed that he ha d chro nic neck proble ms year s before t he July 2002 acc iden t. Dr. Pentel la opine d that ba sed upon the abnormal ity

and symptoms dati ng back to 2001, the Jul y 2002 acc iden t did not
cause th e C 5- C 6 h er ni ati on fo r w hi ch th e p lai nt iff ha d s ur ge ry. She did not beli eve that the plaintiff was even a surgical candidate at the ti me of su rge rybecause the disc was asymp toma tic and there was no evidence of nerve i rri tati on. Furt her, bas ed on herevaluat ion of the MRIs, she di d not be lieve th at t he Ju ly 2 00 2 a cc id en t ag gr av ate d t he pl ain tif f's8

preexis ting conditi on or sig ni fic an tly in cr ea se d h is p ain lev el. Fi na lly, Dr. Pentel la te sti fied that she did not

belie ve that

the pla inti ff suffere d anyfun ctiona l disability as a res ult of t he July 2 002 acc iden t. In August 2005, t

he plai ntiff

was evaluat ed by t

he plai ntiff

's e xp er t, Dr . Robert Margolis, a neurologist. After r eviewing the plaintiff' s medical records a nd conducti ng a medical examinati on of the plaintiff, Dr. Margolis opined that the 2003 MRI revealed fur ther progress ion of

the dis c protr

usion at the C5-C6 level , that the July 2002 accident

was a direct
cause of the exacer

bation of the pla inti ff's injur

y, and that

the need for

surgery was a resu lt of the July 2002 ac cident. Ho wev er, on cross-ex amination, D r. Margolis acknowle dged that the plaintiff had achronic c onditi on in his neck in 2001. Dr. Margolis opined that if a patie nt with that c onditi on gets re ar-end ed an d suffers w hiplash , it could exacerbat e the pre exist ing herniated disc. F urther, Dr. Margolis test ifie d that after comparing the 2001 MRI w ith t he 200 3 M RI, th e plaintiff's C5-C 6 disc w as in essentially the same co ndition. Also, D r. M argo lis compared the 2001 MRI with one conduct ed on the plaintiff in 2004, and he found no ch ange in the p laintiff's co ndition , wh ich co uld indicate that the July 2002 accident

had
no effe ct on th e plain tiff's nec k. H ow ever, D r. M argo lis indi cated t hat it is al so import ant to ev alua te the plain tiff's s ymp tom s, alo ng w ith th e M RI s can s. The jury retur ned a verdi ct in f

avor of the defendant. On October 24, 20 07, the plainti f f filed a posttrial m otion for a d irected verd ict or a ju dgm ent n.o.v . or, i n the alte rnati ve, a new tria l. On April4, 2008, t he circ uit cour

t de nied the plaintiff' s postt rial
mo tion . Th e pla intiff no w a ppe als. The plaintiff' s fir st ar gument on appeal i s that the trial c ourt er

red in denying the plainti ff's motion in limine conc erning the pla intiff's prio r accid ents an d injurie s . Sp ec ifi ca lly, the pla inti ff asser ts that the defendant

fail ed to int

roduce evidence s howing a causal connecti on between the prior acc idents and injuries andthe pres ent case
. The plaintiff9

also argues that the int

roduction of these prior accid ents an d injurie s wa s high ly prejudic ial. We revi ew a tria l court 's de nial of a motion in limine under an abuse- of-dis creti on standar d. Janky v. Perry , 343 Il l. App. 3d 230, 234 (2003). An appellat e court may find an abuse of discr etion only where no r easonable person would t ake the vie w adopted bythe trial
cour t. It i s the functi on of the trialcourt t o determi ne the admis sibi lit y and r elevance of evidence, and its ruli ng will not be dist urbed absent

an abu se o f dis creti on. Jack son v . Seib , 372 Ill . App. 3d 1061, 1070 ( 200 7). E viden ce m ust be releva nt to be adm issible at a trial. Voy kin v. Estate of

DeBoer , 192 I ll. 2d 49, 57 (2000) . Evidence i s deemed rel evant i f it ha s any t endencyto make the exi stence of any fac t that

is of cons equence to t

he determi nation of th e ac tion mo re o r less pro bab le tha n it w oul d be wit hou t the e vid enc e. Fronabarger v. Burns , 385 Ill. A pp. 3 d 56 0, 56 4 (2 008 ). A pri or in

ju ry o r p re ex ist in g c on di tio n m ay b e r ele va nt to th e is su e o f a pl ain tif f's damages in a per sonal inju ry actio n. Lagestee v. Days Inn Management Co. , 303 Il l. App. 3d 935, 944 (1999) . Evidence of prior injuries may

be rele vant to nega te caus ation, to nega te
or reduce damages, or for imp eac hm ent. Voy kin , 192 I ll. 2d at 5 7. If a d efen dant w ishes to intr oduce e vidence o f a prior injur y, the defendant

must int

roduce expert evide nce demonstrating wh y the prior injury is relevant to ca usati on, damages, or some other issue of consequence, unless t

he t rial court det ermines t hat a l ayper son can readi ly apprais e the relat ion ship betw een tho se in jurie s. Voy kin , 192 Ill. 2d at 59
. Befo re evidence of prior i njuri es may be a dmitt ed ata trial , the defendant must first present medical or

other compet ent evi dence to es tabli sh a causal connecti on between the evid enc e offere d an d th e co mp laine d-o f inju ry. Lagestee , 303 Ill . App. 3d at 944, 946-47. For a prior

injur y t o be rele vant to c ausati on, the i n jury must make it

less l ikely

that t he de fe nd an t's action s cau sed a ny of the plainti ff's injur ies or an ident ifia

ble portion ther eof. Voy kin , 192 Ill . 2d at 58. Further , even i f the pri or inj urydoes not negat e causat ion, it could10

still be rele vant to t

he issue of

damages if i t could e stabl ish that the plaintiff had a preexi sti ng conditi on for which the defendantis no t liab le, thu s red ucin g da ma ges . Voy kin , 192 Ill . 2d at 58. Final ly , pri or injuri es can be re levant to impeachment

in that a plai ntiff

may be examined with respe ct to his failure to disclose to h is physician that he had pre viou sly suffere d an inju ry to the sam e pa rt of the b ody. Voy kin , 192 Ill. 2d at 58
. In this case, we cannot saythat t

he tria l court

abused it s discr etion by admitt ing evidence of t

he plai ntiff

's prior acc idents and injuries. At the trial, Dr. Walsh, Dr. Spargo, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Pentel la, and Dr. Margolis all t esti fied t o some degree that the pri or inj uries
were relevant to t

he current

injuries and t

hat the plaintiff had suffered fro m a preexisting chro nic pain-causing c onditi on in his neck prior to the J uly 2002 accident . Furt

her, t he plaintiff was sti ll being treat ed for his earli er acci dents on t he day of th e July 20 02 ac ciden t. The plaintiff t esti fied that some of hi s tre atment aft er the J uly 2002 accident

was also re late d to the two ear lier

accident s, t

hat some of the medi cal bills which h e subm itted to the jury
were not solel y r elat ed to the Ju ly 2002 accid ent, an d that h e had failed to info rm so me o f his doctors of

ea rl ie r a cc id en ts whe n he so ught t re atmen t f

orth e Jul y200 2 a cc id en t. Thu s, we findthat t he tri al court

did not abus e its discr etionin all owing evidence of t he plai ntiff

's prior
acc iden ts an d in

jurie s. The plaintiff' s second ar gument on appeal i s that the trial c ourt er

red in denyi ng the pl ain tif f's motion in limine concerni ng the amount of damage t o t he pla intif f's vehicl e, photographs of the pl ainti ff's vehicl e, and any argumen t reg arding minim al imp act. Sp ec ifi ca lly, the pla intif f argues t

hat int roducing t

he photos of t

he plai ntiff

's ve hicle was high lyprejudi cial and that no expert t esti fied about the photos or the i mpact of the vehi cle. We review a trialcourt' s denialof a motion in limine un der an abuse-of- discr etion standar d. Baraniak v. Kurby , 371 Il l. App. 3d 310, 317 (2007). Recently , thi s court has had two o pportuni ties to rul e on the admis sibi lit y of aut omobile acci dent photogr aphs i n11

neglige nce cases, firs t in t he case of Jack son v . Seib , 372 Ill. App. 3d 1061 (2007), and most
recen tlyin Fronabarger v. Burns , 385 Il l. App. 3d 560 ( 2008). I niti ally , we recogni ze that it is t he functi on of the trialcourt t o determi ne the admissi bili ty and rele vance of evidenc e, and its ru ling wil l no t be d istur bed abs ent a n ab use of d iscre tion
. Jackson , 372 Il l. App. 3d at 107 0. A n abu se of

discre tion oc curs w hen n o reas onab le person would t ake the posi tion ado pted by the trial c our t. Fronabarger , 385 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 5 64. Evidence is deemed re levant if it has any tendency

to make the exi stence of any fac t that is of cons equence to t

he deter minati on of

the act ion mo re or les s prob able th an it w ould be wit hou t the e vid enc e. Fronabarger , 385 Ill . App. 3d at 564. The plaintiff

argues t hat absentexpe rt te sti m on y on th e c or re lat io n b etw ee n v eh icu lar da m ag e a nd th e p lai nt iff's injuries, photographs of the parties ' damaged vehi cles ar e ina dmissi ble at the trial; the plaintiff cites Baraniak v. Kurby , 371 Ill. A pp. 3 d 31 0 (2 007 ), Ferro v. Gr iffi ths , 361 I ll. App. 3d 738 (2005), and DiCosola v. Bowman , 342 Il l. App. 3d 530 ( 200 3). We have decli ned to accept

a rigid rule that pho tographs a re always adm issible or that expert test imonyis a lw ays necessar y for those phot ographs t o be admissible. Fronabarger , 385 I ll. App. 3d at 5 64. T he critica l ques tion in a dm itti ng thos e pho tograp hs into evide nce is whetherthe jur

y can pr operly

relate the vehi cular damage depicte d in the photos to the injury withoutthe a id o f an exp ert. Jackson , 3 72 I ll . A p p. 3d at1070. This que sti on is an evidentiary que stion left to the d iscre tion of th e tria l cou rt. Fronabarger , 385 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 565. In this case, we cannot saythat the trial c ourt abus ed its discr etion by admitt ing the photographs without expe rt t esti mony. Upon a review of the phot ographs and t he record of the proceedi ngs, we findthat a jury could ass ess the relationship between the damage t o the vehicl es and the pl ainti ff's injuries wit hout the ai d of an expert . The photographs depict ed
som e d amage to the de fendant' s vehicl e and no damage to the plai ntiff 's ve hicle . The12

photographs were intr oduced to show why mini mal damage to the vehic les w as relev ant to the nature and extent

of the pl ainti ff's injuries, as statedby bot h Dr. Pentel la and Dr. J enkins at the trial. The trial court could have prop erly foun d that th e pho tograp hs w ere rele vant to prove th at t he pl ain tif

f's injur y was more or

less probable. Therefore, the trial c ourt di d not abu se its disc retio n. Further, the pla inti ff asser ts that Dr. Pent ella 's t esti mony regarding m inimalimpact shou ld have been excluded as highly prejudi cial . The plaintiff argues t hat Dr. Pent ella

gave contradi cting test imony and t hat she di d not anal yze the im pact o n the d efen dant's v ehicle as
a resul t of the colli sion. The p laint iff ar gu es th at, th er ef or e, t he de fe nd an t d id no t la y a pro per fou nda tion to ad mit D r. Pe ntell a's tes timo ny. The decision w hether to adm it expert test imony i s withi n the sound discr etion of the tri al cou rt, an d a r ulin g w ill no t be r eve rsed abs ent a n ab use of d iscre tion
. Fronabarger , 385 Ill. App. 3d at 565-66. An expert' s opini on is admis sibl e if the expert is qual ifie d by knowled ge, skill, exp erienc e, training , or edu cation in a reliab le field a nd if th e testim on y
wo uld aid the jury in und ersta ndi ng t he e vid enc e. Fronabarger , 385 Il l. App. 3d at 565. The admissi on of expert

test imony r equires the proponent to lay an adequate foundation establ ishi ng that t

he informat ion on which the expert bases her opini on is re liabl e. Fronabarger , 385 Ill . App. 3d at 565. Once a pr op er fo un da tio n h as be en lai d, t he ex pe rt's test imonyis a dm iss ib le, bu t th e w eig ht to be as sig ne d t o t ha t te sti m on y is forthe jur y to dec ide. Fronabarger , 385 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 5 65. Just as in Fronabarger , we find that the defendant laid a proper founda tion for D r. Pe nt ell a's expert test im ony . D r . Pente lla testified regard ing h er qu alificatio ns at the trial, including her educat ion, obs ervati ons, and experience s as a physi cian. See Fronabarger , 385 Ill. App. 3d at 566. Dr. Pentel la based her opinions regardi ng the pla inti ff's injuries on her physi cal exam ination of the plaintiff , her rev ie w of t he plai ntiff 's medi cal re cords, and the13

lackof damage to the plaintiff' s vehicl e, as depicted in the photographs. Therefore, we find that t he tr ial co urt d id n ot ab use its dis creti on i n allo win g D r. Pe ntell a's tes timo ny. The plaintiff's nex t argument on appeal i s that

the trial c ourt er

red in al lowing statem ents regarding se ttlement to be he ard by t he jury . Speci fical ly , the plaintiff poin ts to the defendant' s closing argument where t he defendant s tate d that

when the lawsuit

was filed, the plaintiff

requ ested c om pens ation for all the med ical bills fr om all t hree acc idents, whereas during the tri al, the pl aintiff asked the jur y to only reimburse for those bi lls relat ed to the Jul y 2002 accident. Th e plaintiff objected to those stateme nts, which the trial court overrul ed. The plaintiff cont ends that those st atements impli ed settlementtalks an d sho uld not h ave been adm itted to the jury. Altern atively, the p laintiff a rgue s that the statem ents impli ed that t

he defendant would have to p ersonal ly pay any judgment re ndered for t he plaintiff. The defendantasserts that the statemen ts were m ad e in re sp on se to th e p lai nt iff's sug gesti on that his medica l bil ls submi tted to the jur y shoul d be reduced and t hat the pl ain tif f's interpre tation o f these state ments i s a mi sc har ac t eri zat i onof

t he ev i de nc e. We agree. The prejudi cial impact of r emarks made in opening statem ents o r closin g arg um ents is a ma tt er left w ithin the discre tion of the trial co urt, and the co urt's ruling will not b e overtur ned on review absent

an a bus e of

disc retio n. Morgan v. Richardson , 343 Il l. App. 3d 733, 740 (2003). In Illi nois, stat ements regarding se ttl ement nego tiations o r offe rs to settle
are general ly

no t admiss ibl e. Morgan , 343 Il l. App. 3d at 740. However, in thi s case, the defend an t's statements du ring closing arg umen t cannot be construed to imply prior settlemen t offers or negotiations, nor did t he defendantmake any st atements imply ing that the defendant
wo uld hav e to p erso nally p ay an y judg me nt en tered for the p laint iff. Inste ad, t hose state me nts w ere u tilized by the defend ant for im pea chm ent p urp ose s. Fu rth er , ev en if t he de fe nd an t's statements co uld have been co nstrued by the jury as14

imply ing settlem ent d iscussi ons or that the de fendant would per sonall y have t o pay, if the
error did not affect

the outcom e at the trial or if the appellate cou rt can see from the entire record that no injury

has occurr ed as a res ult of t he remarks, the appel lat e cou rt will not disturb the judgment

on rev iew
. Morgan , 343 Il l. App. 3d at 740. Thus, we cannot fi nd that the trial cou rt abus ed its dis cretion in allow ing th e def endant' s stat ements during closi ng arg um ent. The plaintiff's final arg um ents on appeal can be combined into one argument that the circuit court er

red in den ying the p laintiff's re ques ts for a d irected verd ict, a judg men t n.o.v . , or a n ew tri al . E st ab li sh edst an da rd s are us edinde te rmini ng w h e ther a dir ecte d ve rdic t, a judgment n.o.v . , or a new trial sh oul d be gra nted
. Maple v. Gustaf son , 151 Ill . 2d 445, 453 (1992). In consi dering s uch motions, the trial c ourt canno t reweigh the evidence and s et aside a verdict just

because the jury

could have dr awn different infere nces or conclusions or because the c our t fee ls tha t oth er re sults are m ore reas ona ble. M aple , 151 Il l. 2d at 452. Likewise, we ca nnot un surp the fu nction of the juryand substi tute our own judgment for that of th e jur y. Maple , 151 Ill. 2d at 45 2-5 3. We re vi ew de novo a trial cou rt's denial of a motion for a directed verd ict or a judgment n.o.v . Jackson , 372 Il l. App. 3d at 10 68. A directe d ver dict or a judg men t n.o.v . is pro perly

entere d where all the evi dence, when viewed i n the li ght most favor able t o the nonmoving party , so over whelmingly

favors t he moving part

y t hat no contrary verdict

based
on that e vidence could everstand. M aple , 151 Ill. 2d at 453. In ru ling on a m otion for a direct ed verd ict or a ju dgm ent n. o.v. , the cour t does not w eigh th e evid ence , nor is it concernedwith the cre dibility of the witnesses. M aple , 151 Ill. 2d at 453. Instead , the court may only con sider th e evid ence , and a ny rationa l infer ences therefrom, in the li ght most fav ora ble to the n onm ovi ng p arty. M aple , 151 Ill. 2d at 45 3. Further, a judg men t n.o.v . may not be granted mer ely because a ver dict

is against

the15

manifest weight of th e ev iden ce. Maple , 151 Il l. 2d at 453. A trial court has no right to ente r
a judg men t n.o.v . if the re is any evi dence demonstr ating a substantial f

actualdisput e or whe re the assess men t of the witn esses' cre dibility or the d eterm in ation re garding conf licting evid enc e is d ecis ive to the o utco me at the trial. M aple , 151 Ill. 2d at 45 4. A lte rn ati ve ly, on a motion for a new tria l, acourt wil l weigh the evidence and s et aside the verdi ct andorde r a new trial if the verdi ct is contrar

y t o the manifes t weight of the evidence. Maple , 151 Ill . 2d at 454. A verdict

is against the manifest

weight of

the evi dence whe re th e o pp os ite re su lt is cle ar ly ev id en t o r w he re th e ju ry' s findings a re unreas onable,
ar bi tra ry, and not bas ed o n th e ev iden ce. M aple , 151 I ll. 2d at 454 . We will not revers e a tri al court' s ruling on a mo tion fo r a new trial unle ss it is affirmatively show n that the cou rt clearly abused it s discr etion, because the tri al jud ge had the benefit of obser ving the witnesse s fir sthand at

the tr ial. Maple , 151 Il l. 2d at 455. I n determi ning whether t he tri al court ab us ed its di sc re tio n, w e m us t co ns id er w he th er th e ju ry's verdict was supported by

the evid enc e an d w heth er th e los ing par ty wa s de nied a fa ir trial. M aple , 151 Ill. 2d at 45 5. Aftercarefully reviewing the eviden ce addu ced at the trial, as set fort h ab ove , we cannotfind that the j ury 's f indings were unreasonabl e, arbitrar y, and not based upon the evide nce. T he jury in th is case h eard c onf licting tes timon y regardin g w hat, if any, injuries the plaintiff sus taine d as a res ult of the acci dent in que sti on. The credibili ty issues at the tri al
were especia lly

signi ficant

in li ght of the subjective nat ure of the plaintiff' s complaint s, t he pho tograp hic evide nce s how ing m inor d ama ge to the pla in tif f's ve hi cle , an d D r. P en tel la's findings. See Jackson , 372 Il l. App. 3d at 1069. Since the witnesses' t estimony in t his case confli cted, the question of whom to beli eve and what weightto give to all the evi dence was
a decisi on for the t

rier of fac t, whose determinations should not be upset on review unless manifest ly

erroneous . See Jackson , 372 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 1 069
. It is the province of the jury to r e solve conflicts in the evide nce, to pass u pon the cre dibility of the witn esses, a nd to16

decide the weightto b e giv en to the w itnes ses' te stim ony. M aple , 151 Il l. 2d at 452. For these reasons, w e canno t conclude that the trial court er re d i n d en yin g t he pl ain tif f's requ ests for a d irected verd ict, a judg men t n.o.v . , or a new trial. For the fore going reas ons, t he judgment of t

he circ uit cour

t of Ma d ison C oun ty is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

SPOM ER, J., concurs.

JUS TIC E C HA PM AN , dissen ting: I believe that t

he jury verdi ct was against the manifes t weight of the evidence and t

hat theref ore a motion for a

new trialshould have bee n granted. See Maple v. Gustaf son , 151 Ill. 2d 445, 454 (1992). In thi s admitt ed negli gence case, a verdict for the pl ainti ff was clear from the te sti mony and the medica l evid enc e pr ese nted at the trial. F rom the e vid enc e, I belie ve that t

he jury should have conc luded that the defen dant's negligence , at the very least, prox imate lycaused a n aggravat ion of a pre exist ing inj ury . The amount of t he verdic t was much less e vident. Determini ng the nat ure and e xtent of the p laintiff's injuries that were
caus ally relat ed to the ac ciden t of Ju ly 12, 200 2, and not to h is two prior a utom obile accidents, was no easytask. De spite the diffic ulty of the task b efore it, the jury had a duty to resol ve the is sue of proxi mate cause fa irl y, apply ing the fact s to the law, and not throw up its hands a nd aw ard zero damages. For those r easons, I would rever se and remand for a new trial.NO. 5-08-0185 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ RIC HARD D. FORD, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. ) v. ) No. 04-L-329 ) TERRY GRIZZLE, ) Ho nora ble ) A. A. Matoesian, Defendant-Appell ee. ) Judge, presi ding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Rule 23 Order Fi led: January 22, 2010 Motion to Publi sh Granted: February 17, 2010 Opinion Filed : February 17, 2010

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Honorable Th omas M . Welch, J.

Ho nor able Ste phe n L . Sp om er, J., Con curs Ho nor able M eliss a A . Ch apm an, J ., Diss ents

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys Lance R. Mallon, Dawna M. Hale, Mallon Law Firm, Ltd., 515 Madison Avenue, for Wood River, IL 62095 Appell ant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney Mic ha el J. Bed es ky , R ee d, Arm st ro ng, Gorman , Mu dge & Morris se y , P .C ., 115 N. for Buchanan, P.O. Box 368, Edwardsvill e, IL 62025 Appellee

___________________________________________________________________________________