Defendant contends the trial court should have allowed it to present evidence regarding plaintiff's option of transferring to engineer service in the future, after plaintiff has a total knee replacement and can no longer work as a conductor. However, during the offer of proof, the witnesses who would have testified at trial about plaintiff's future option of transferring to engineer service stated that it was difficult to predict how well plaintiff would function as an engineer after knee surgery or how much money he could expect to earn as engineer. The trial court correctly excluded such evidence as too speculative. 209 Ill. App. Next, defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting a written report memorializing a conversation between plaintiff and a supervisor, J.C. Poe, in which plaintiff reported he was off work because of fluid on his knees.
Defendant contends the report was irrelevant and hearsay.
Poe testified the report was a business record prepared as a routine practice of defendant shortly after his conversation with plaintiff, and, thus, the report was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 139 Ill. App. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Poe's report. Next, defendant argues the trial court erred by allowing plaintiff's medical expert to testify that the time frame for plaintiff's knee replacement ranged from 3 to 12 years. Defendant contends the expert's trial testimony conflicted with his pretrial deposition testimony and, therefore, should have been stricken.