Court Opinion

ID: 9703488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:58:43.506683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:49.793483
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I would find that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the defendant to offer into evidence photographs of the damage to the vehicles without expert testimony to show a correlation between lack of damage to the vehicles and injury to the plaintiff. As the majority notes, whether to admit photographs is within the discretion of the trial court. DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill. App. 3d 530 (2003). I agree with the majority’s finding that there is no rigid rule that proscribes the admission of photographs without an expert. However, I am also mindful of the DiCosola court’s concern that a jury not be allowed to engage in “unguided speculation” when invited by a party to “infer” that there is a correlation between the extent of vehicular damage and the extent of personal injuries. The DiCosola court, based upon its own research, noted this concern articulated by the Delaware Supreme Court: “In Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001), the Delaware Supreme Court held that a party in a vehicular personal injury case generally may not argue that there is a correlation between the extent of vehicular damage and the extent of a person’s injury caused by the accident in the absence of expert testimony on that issue and may not rely on photographs of the vehicle(s) involved to indirectly accomplish the same purpose. The Davis court decided that ‘[ajbsent such testimony, any inference by the jury that minimal damage to the plaintiffs car translates into minimal personal injuries to the plaintiff would necessarily amount to unguided speculation.’ Davis, 770 A.2d at 40.” DiCosola, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 537-38. Here, the defendant sought admission of the photographs in order to invite the jury to infer from lack of damage to the vehicles that the impact was too light to cause the plaintiffs injuries. In closing argument, defense counsel addressed the jury as follows: “But look at the impact to the car. You guys have — half of you have seen accidents like this every day. Minor fender benders, the ones that are in parking lots where it hits somebody, particularly a small car and a big van, it is not going to move it — Not only pictures show a minor impact. *** So what physically in your own common sense could possibly ram that [tank] into his chest.” Defense counsel asked the jury to engage in exactly the kind of “unguided speculation” against which the DiCosola court warned. I disagree with the majority’s characterization of this question as “close.” The only reason for the admission of the photographs was to support the argument that lack of damage to the vehicles supports an inference that the impact did not cause the plaintiffs physical injuries. As the DiCosola court points out, without expert testimony to establish such an inference, the jury would be left to engage in unguided speculation. Likewise, it was also improper to admit the photographs to rebut the plaintiffs testimony that the impact of the collision was “very heavy.” Again, the DiCosola court addressed the same contention: “In addition, the Davis court addressed the argument, similar to that presented by defendant to the trial court in the instant case, that the photographs of the minimal damage to the plaintiffs vehicle were admissible to support a commonsense inference that the plaintiffs complaints were not credible. The court held that counsel could not rely on photographs of the vehicle(s) involved to accomplish indirectly what the court had already determined was improper argument. Davis, 770 A.2d at 41.” DiCosola, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 538. I agree. The defendant should not be allowed to invite unguided speculation under the guise of attacking the plaintiffs credibility. I see no relevance of the photographs in the instant matter other than to advance the theory that the light damage to the vehicles translates into no injury to the plaintiff. Such an argument could only be made by way of expert testimony as to the effect of degrees of impact upon the human body. I would find that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the photographs into evidence and allowing the argument therefrom that the plaintiffs injuries could not have been caused by the impact from the collision. Because the question of causation of the plaintiffs injuries was the essential element in conflict, I would find that the photographs and the argument therefrom worked a prejudice upon the plaintiff. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the matter for a new trial. As I would remand on this issue, I would not reach the other issues raised in this appeal.