Court Opinion

ID: 9720785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:41:25.767077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.286018
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’MARA FROSSARD, dissenting: In affirming the trial court’s decision excluding evidence of the minimal damage to plaintiffs vehicle, the majority has, in addition to a relevancy requirement, created a new requirement of expert testimony as a prerequisite for admitting such evidence. I am concerned that this opinion will be interpreted as creating the following bright-line rule: if a defendant wishes to minimize the injury to a plaintiffs person by offering evidence of minor damage to plaintiffs vehicle, then the defendant must introduce expert testimony demonstrating why the damage to plaintiffs vehicle is relevant to the nature and extent of plaintiffs injury. While there may be a factual scenario where expert testimony regarding that correlation should be required, this is not that case. Defendant introduced evidence, albeit nonexpert evidence, demonstrating why minimal damage to plaintiffs vehicle was relevant to the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries. In the factual context of this case, there is no reason to depart from ordinary relevancy principles as a prerequisite for admitting such evidence. Based on ordinary principles of relevancy, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence and photographs offered by defendant depicting minimal damage to plaintiff’s vehicle and prohibiting defendant from arguing that a correlation existed between the amount of damage to the vehicle and the extent of plaintiffs injuries. In support of the expert testimony requirement, the majority relies on Voykin v. DeBoer, 192 Ill. 2d 49 (2000). Voykin did not address the issue in the instant case, namely, the correlation or relationship between the extent of damage to plaintiffs vehicle and the extent of plaintiffs personal injury. Voykin addressed the relationship between a prior injury and a current injury in the context of a personal injury case. In analyzing that relationship, Voykin noted, “ ‘jurors are not skilled in the practice of medicine.’ ” Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 58-59, quoting Walski v. Tiesenga, 72 Ill. 2d 249, 256 (1978). Recognizing that “the connection between the parts of the body and past and current injuries is a subject that is beyond the ken of the average layperson,” the court in Voykin concluded that “[bjecause of this complexity, we do not believe that, in normal circumstances, a lay juror can effectively or accurately assess the relationship between a prior injury and a current injury without expert assistance.” Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 59. The complexity recognized in Voykin requires expert assistance to aid jurors in resolving the issues presented by the relationship between a prior and current injury. However, the analogy to Voykin fails because the facts of the instant case do not present the complex relationship recognized in Voykin which required expert testimony to assist the jury. Plaintiff argues in his brief that “medial epicondylitis and the force of impact required to create that condition is a difficult relationship to understand. Complicated issues dealing with medicine and physics engulf that relationship and it is certainly not within the common experience and understanding of a layperson.” A witness, expert or otherwise, never offered that opinion or described the relationship as complicated. Plaintiffs expert did not indicate that in his opinion there was no correlation between the extent of vehicular damage and the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries. The record does not reflect that the relationship between the minimal damage to plaintiffs vehicle and the extent of plaintiffs injuries is a complex subject that is beyond the ken of the lay juror requiring expert assistance in order for the juror to effectively or accurately assess. Based on the complexity of the connection between the parts of the body and past and current injuries, Voykin held “if a defendant wishes to introduce evidence that the plaintiff has suffered a prior injury, whether to the ‘same part of the body’ or not, the defendant must introduce expert evidence demonstrating why the prior injury is relevant to causation, damages, or some other issue of consequence. This rule applies unless the trial court, in its discretion, determines that the natures of the prior and current injuries are such that a lay person can readily appraise the relationship, if any, between those injuries without expert assistance.” Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 59. The majority concludes, “The same principles apply to the relationship between damage to a plaintiffs vehicle and the nature and extent of a plaintiffs personal injuries.” 342 Ill. App. 3d at 537. Applying those principles, the rule created by the majority requires that a defendant must introduce expert evidence demonstrating why the minimal damage is relevant, if the defendant wishes to introduce evidence depicting minimal damage to plaintiffs vehicle. This rule applies unless the trial court in its discretion determines that a lay person can readily appraise the relationship, if any, between the minimal damage to plaintiff’s vehicle and the extent of plaintiff’s injuries without expert assistance. Superimposing the Voykin rule in the factual context of this relatively simple, soft-tissue personal injury case is not supported by the record. The complexity recognized in Voykin resulting in the need for expert testimony is nonexistent in the instant case. There is no reason in the factual context of this case to depart from ordinary relevancy principles as a prerequisite for admitting evidence. In the factual context of this case, the defendant offered evidence, albeit not expert evidence, demonstrating why damage to the plaintiffs vehicle was relevant. Credibility issues were especially significant in light of plaintiffs delay in symptoms and treatment, together with the subjective nature of his complaints. On March 19, 1997, the date of the first accident, which is the subject of this case, plaintiff had been stopped for approximately 20 seconds in the Dominick’s parking lot before impact. Defendant drove her vehicle through a parking space and collided with plaintiffs vehicle. When the impact occurred, plaintiff could not state whether he hit his elbow on the steering wheel or whether he was straining his elbow. Plaintiff was not cut or bleeding. He did not tell the police he was injured. After the accident, plaintiff went on a three-week vacation to Florida. He drove his vehicle to Florida. He first sought medical attention four weeks later. Plaintiffs motion in limine prevented the jury from viewing photos truly and accurately reflecting the plaintiffs vehicle as the result of the impact. Plaintiff’s motion in limine prevented the jury from considering photos showing little or no damage in determining what if any injuries plaintiff sustained as a result of the accident. Three months later, plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Bartucci, diagnosed plaintiff with medial epicondylitis, commonly referred to as golfer’s elbow. Golfer’s elbow could be caused by repetitive motion or use of the elbow or overuse activity. The plaintiff owned and operated laundry mats. Plaintiffs job activities included cleaning the laundry mats, emptying out money machines, and filling pop machines. Nothing in Dr. Bartucci’s notes indicated there was anything that hit or impacted plaintiffs elbow in any way during the accident. Based on the history provided by plaintiff, Dr. Bartucci related the medial epicondylitis to the automobile accident in March 1997. However, Dr. Bartucci also indicated the plaintiffs medial epicondylitis could have been work related from overuse. Clearly, plaintiffs credibility was in issue. Plaintiffs injury was aggravated by another vehicle accident in February 1998. In the instant case, treatment for the soft-tissue injury included cortisone shots, 12 physical therapy sessions, and use of an elbow brace. The medical bills were $1,763. Jurors in this state, without expert testimony, by using their common sense and everyday experience, have considered testimony and evidence regarding the impact of vehicle collisions in determining the nature and extent of a plaintiffs injuries. Jurors in this state, without expert testimony, using their common sense and everyday experience, have considered photos of a plaintiffs vehicle in determining the nature and extent of plaintiffs damages, including personal injury. Such photos and evidence have historically been regarded as relevant to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s damages absent expert testimony. Jurors without expert testimony have considered photographic evidence in determining the minor nature of the impact in connection with evaluating a plaintiffs credibility. For example, in Maple v. Gustafson, the Illinois Supreme Court recognized that photographic evidence reflected on plaintiffs’ credibility and demonstrated the minor nature of the impact as follows: “The credibility issues in this trial were especially significant in light of plaintiffs’ delay in symptoms and treatment, the subjective nature of their complaints, the photographic evidence showing the minor nature of the impact, and Dr. Frederick’s findings.” Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 460 (1992). Similar to Maple, in the instant case, credibility issues were especially significant in light of plaintiffs delay in symptoms and treatment and the subjective nature of his complaints. In Cancio v. White, 297 Ill. App. 3d 422 (1998), we recognized that photos of a plaintiffs’ vehicle were relevant to the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ injuries. Although the issue of whether expert testimony should have been required as a prerequisite for admissibility of the photographs of the plaintiffs’ vehicle was not raised in Cancio, relevancy of the photos, as well as the nature of plaintiffs’ injuries, was clearly in issue. Similar to Cancio, relevancy of the photos and the nature of plaintiffs injuries are clearly in issue in the instant case. In Cancio, the only witnesses were the plaintiffs and a neurosurgeon called by the plaintiffs. Similar to Cancio, in the instant case, plaintiff relied on his own testimony and the evidence provided by Dr. Bartucci. In Cancio, as in the instant case, no expert was provided by the defendant. In both Cancio and the instant case, the credibility of plaintiff and the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries were in issue. Regarding the relevancy of the photos of plaintiffs’ vehicle, in Cancio we concluded as follows: “In the instant case, the photos of plaintiffs’ vehicle were relevant to the nature and extent of plaintiffs’ damages. They were relevant because they showed little or no damage, which is something the jury could consider in determining what, if any, injuries [plaintiffs] sustained as a result of the accident. Accordingly, we find that admission of the photos was proper.” Cancio, 297 Ill. App. 3d at 433. There is no reason to depart from that analysis in the context of this case. There is no reason to depart from ordinary relevancy principles in the instant case. As in Cancio, the photos of plaintiffs vehicle were relevant to the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries. They were relevant because they showed little or no damage, which is something the jury should have been allowed to consider in determining what, if any, injuries plaintiff sustained as a result of the accident. Plaintiff had the opportunity when arguing the motion in limine to provide evidence or an offer of proof that there was no relevancy correlation between the extent of vehicular damage and the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff offered no such evidence. Plaintiffs expert offered no such opinion regarding lack of correlation. Plaintiff had the opportunity to demonstrate the photos were not relevant. Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a complex relationship that required expert testimony to assist the jury. I am well aware that a defendant who wishes to introduce evidence is required to “ ‘demonstrate that the evidence he wishes to present is relevant to the question at issue.’ ” 342 Ill. App. 3d at 537, quoting Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 56. In the instant case, defendant satisfied relevancy and foundational requirements for admission of the photographs. Contrary to the majority’s assertions, I am not suggesting that “photographs are always relevant and admissible,” nor am I suggesting a bright-line rule that expert testimony should never be required as a prerequisite for photographs to be admissible. 342 Ill. App. 3d at 537. A proper foundation is a prerequisite for admission of photographs. Relevance is a prerequisite for admission of photographs. The record indicates the photos truly and accurately reflect the condition of the vehicle as the result of the accident, and similar to Cando, the record demonstrates that the photographic evidence was relevant. When, as in the instant case, plaintiffs credibility and the nature and extent of plaintiff s injuries are in issue, photographic evidence is relevant. Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 460; Cando, 297 Ill. App. 3d at 433. The majority opinion will be interpreted as requiring expert testimony if a defendant wishes to challenge plaintiffs personal injury by showing the minor damage to plaintiffs vehicle. Based on that interpretation, in every case, regardless of whether the plaintiff calls an expert, if the defendant wants to admit photographic evidence to challenge the injury to plaintiffs person by showing minor damage to plaintiff’s vehicle, defendant will be required to present expert testimony regarding the correlation between plaintiffs injuries and damage to plaintiffs vehicle or risk exclusion of that evidence. Under this rule, if defendant wants to elicit direct testimony from the parties about the nature of the impact, defendant will be required to present expert testimony regarding the correlation between plaintiffs injuries and the nature of the impact, or risk exclusion of that evidence. This rule flies in the face of common sense and everyday experience. I am well aware of the trial court’s discretion to grant a motion in limine inherent in its power to admit or exclude evidence. In the factual context of the instant case, based on ordinary relevancy principles, it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to admit photographs and evidence depicting the minimal damage to plaintiffs vehicle. Requiring expert testimony as a prerequisite to finding the photographs and evidence relevant was not supported by the record. In the instant case, where plaintiffs credibility and the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries are in issue, the photos were relevant because they showed little or no damage, which is something the jury could consider in determining what, if any, injuries plaintiff sustained as a result of the accident. Maple, 151 Ill. 2d at 460; Canelo, 297 Ill. App. 3d at 433. Nothing in this record indicates the correlation between the extent of vehicular damage and the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries is a complex subject that is beyond the ken of the lay juror. In the factual context of the instant case, the correlation between the extent of vehicular damage as reflected by photographic evidence and the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries is such that a lay person can readily discern the relationship, without expert assistance. Based on the evidence, including plaintiffs delay in symptoms and treatment together with the subjective nature of his complaints, the jury, without expert assistance, using common sense and everyday experience, should have been allowed to consider photographic evidence in evaluating the relationship between the minor nature of the impact and the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries. A lay juror, in the context of this case, could effectively and accurately assess the relationship between the extent of vehicular damage and the nature and extent of plaintiffs injuries, using common sense and everyday experience. Jurors have demonstrated their ability to make these kinds of determinations in thousands of cases without expert testimony. Under ordinary relevancy principles, the photos and evidence depicting minimal damage to plaintiffs vehicle should have been admitted and considered by the jurors. The rule created by the majority in the instant case undermines the role of the jury to make determinations regarding relevant evidence based on common sense and everyday experience. I respectfully dissent.