Court Opinion

ID: 9709977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:58:50.230884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.179828
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The admissibility of a photograph is governed by the same rules of relevancy and materiality as is other evidence. (Quigley v. Snoddy (1968), 102 Ill. App. 2d 232, 242 N.E.2d 775.) A photograph should be excluded when it is irrelevant or immaterial or its prejudicial nature plainly outweighs its probative value. Rusher v. Smith (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 889, 388 N.E.2d 906. In Quigley, the plaintiff was crossing a street from her driveway to a park sidewalk when she was struck by the defendant’s car. On appeal, although no exact number was given, the court noted that a number of photographs of the accident scene were taken and later submitted into evidence at trial. Notwithstanding the other photographs, the photograph at issue was taken in the daylight depicting the sidewalk, the plaintiff’s home, her driveway and a portion of the area to the east of her home. It also showed a portable sign bearing the legend “DO NOT CROSS STREET HERE-USE CROSSWALK.” The appellate court found that this photograph was admitted erroneously at trial and sufficiently prejudiced the appellant to warrant a reversal. Quigley v. Snoddy (1968), 102 Ill. App. 2d 232, 242 N.E.2d 776. Similarly, in the instant case, the condition of the west stairway was at issue. Smith introduced the photograph of the east stairway purportedly to show that Bakers had or should have had notice or knowledge of a defect or dangerous condition regarding both the east and west stairways. Smith also sought to prove that a dangerous condition existing on the west stairway caused his injuries. However, evidence of the east stairway being in a dangerous condition does not indicate that the west stairway was also in a dangerous condition. Furthermore, the defendant’s objection to the admission of the photograph at trial was denied by the trial court, thereby giving judicial sanction to the relevancy of the photograph. The plaintiff then referred to the photograph in his closing argument to buttress his claim of the defendant being generally negligent in maintaining both stairways. Thus, it can hardly be said that the photograph’s impact on the case was of little significance, or harmless error. As such, I find the photograph of the east stairway to be irrelevant, prejudicial, and its admission constitutes reversible error. Accordingly, I must dissent from the proffered opinion.