Court Opinion

ID: 9738376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:51:33.600727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.669355
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: My sole disagreement with the majority is its refusal to allow the testimony of the accident reconstruction expert as to the speed of the cement truck. Relying on Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353 (1979), the majority opines that since the speed of a vehicle is not beyond the ken of the average juror, and since eyewitnesses are available to testify, then the testimony of the accident reconstruction expert is not necessary. 172 Ill. 2d at 204-05. As this court previously pointed out in Zavala v. Powermatic, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 542, 546 (1995), quoting Plank v. Holman, 46 Ill. 2d 465, 471 (1970), "expert reconstruction testimony is proper, even where there is an eyewitness, if what the expert offers is 'knowledge and application of principles of science beyond the ken of the average juror.’ ” Just so. We have here a matter of physics involving weight, mass, measured skid marks, weather, pavement friction and surface conditions, all of which lend themselves to scientific analysis from an expert relative to the speed of the cement truck. While eyewitnesses to a moving vehicle can and should be allowed to testify as to its speed, the reliability of such testimony is problematical. To deny the supplementation of such testimony with the testimony of a qualified scientific expert interferes with the truthseeking function of a trial. Accordingly, I specially concur and dissent as noted. JUSTICE NICKELS joins in this partial special concurrence and partial dissent.