Court Opinion

ID: 9736310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:51:12.5078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:05.753002
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CHAPMAN, specially concurring: I write separately to say that while I believe that the result is correct under the law, I also believe that the justice system failed. Mr. Berry had a very limited life expectancy as a result of his mesothelioma — a fact testified to by his physician and known by all, due to the very nature of this disease. This case required an expedited and equitably enforced discovery schedule or a dual-purpose deposition as provided by Supreme Court Rule 202 (166 Ill. 2d R. 202) so that the plaintiffs testimony could have been preserved. That did not occur. The plaintiff first noticed his evidence deposition on February 25, 2004. At the time of his death, six months later, his evidence deposition had still not taken place. Through a series of motion-related delays and rulings of the trial court, Mr. Berry was denied his “day in court.” I find that regrettable. JUSTICE WEXSTTEN joins in this special concurrence.