Court Opinion

ID: 9542747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:38:07.394966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:52.480179
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REINHARD, specially concurring: While I believe the result of the majority opinion is correct, I specially concur because I cannot agree with some of the analysis contained therein. The single issue in this case can be more concisely resolved. Plaintiff concedes in her brief that she is not contending that the purported statement by the unnamed customer service representative is admissible as a statement by an agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of her employment. Such statements, when a proper foundation is made, are admissible as admissions of a party and are an exception to the hearsay rule. (See E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence §802.9, at 538 (4th ed. 1984).) Rather, plaintiff maintains that the statement is offered to show, circumstantially, defendant’s notice of the dangerous condition of the escalator and is not hearsay evidence because it is not offered to show that the escalator malfunctioned. Hearsay does not encompass all extrajudicial statements, but only those offered for the purpose of proving the truth of matters asserted in the statement. (See E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence §801.5, at 515-20 (4th ed. 1984).) The testimony of the unnamed clerk here was offered to imply that defendant had notice of a dangerous condition. Although the proposed use of the unnamed clerk’s testimony through plaintiff’s testimony would constitute double hearsay, it is admissible if each of the two statements falls within an exception to the hearsay rule or is a nonhearsay use of the statements. (See E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence §805.1, Commentary, at 610 (4th ed. 1984); Bradley v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (1978), 67 Ill. App. 3d 156, 163, 384 N.E.2d 746.) Here, the testimony was offered to prove more than just the making of the statement. The relevance of the statement in order to prove notice of the dangerous condition depends upon the truth of the matter asserted— that the unnamed clerk had seen the escalator repairman out there many times in the past two weeks. Thus, the statement is hearsay (see generally E. Cleary & M. Graham, Handbook of Illinois Evidence §801.1, at 504-06 (4th ed. 1984)) and was properly excluded by the trial court.