Court Opinion

ID: 9743851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:46:44.500803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:44.383238
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT dissenting: I cannot agree with' the majority opinion since I am of the opinion that the taking of the witness Ramirez to the scene of the accident and then to the building which formerly housed the defendant Lake Club was so violative of our procedure regulating the taking of depositions that such action on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorney constitutes reversible error. Supreme Court Rule 206(c)2 provides: “In an evidence deposition the examination and cross-examination shall be the same as though' the deponent were testifying at the trial.” Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, Sec. 206(c)2. If Ramirez had been testifying during the course of a trial there is no question but what he would have been prohibited from leaving the Witness stand for the pmpose of journeying to a tavern for the purpose of refreshing his memory or identifying the establishment as the site of the alleged violation of the Dram Shop Act. It was the defendant’s theory of defense in this action that they did not sell or give alcoholic liquors to McGonagle on the evening before the accident and consequently the identification of the establishment that did dispense such beverages was a crucial issue in the case. The majority opinion is to the effect that such an irregularity is waived unless the objection to such procedure is included in the deposition. With this contention I cannot agree since the prohibition of a witness leaving the witness stand and journeying to a location outside the court room for the purpose of refreshing his memory is so violative of our manner of conducting a trial that it cannot be waived. The plaintiffs argue that the attorney for the defendants is an experienced trial lawyer and therefore should have perfected a proper objection. The defendants’ attorney upon being advised that the witness Ramirez was going to be taken to the location of the former Lake Club for purpose of identifying the building stated “there was no point in his going along and being a party to suborning perjury.” The error committed by the attorney for the plaintiffs is so violative of the fundamentals of trial procedure that I do not believe it can be waived and the attorney for the defendants had every reason to believe that the deposition hearing had ended when Ramirez proceeded to the location of the former Lake Club. The actions of Ramirez subverts the rules of evidence as well as our Supreme Court Rule 206(c)2 and should not be condoned by this court.