Court Opinion

ID: 9395943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 21:04:43.512884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.855347
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 220270-U

                                          No. 1-22-0270

                                        Filed May 18, 2023

                                                                                   Fourth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                              IN THE
                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                        FIRST DISTRICT

KENYATTA BRIDGES,                                                    )       Appeal from the
                                                                     )       Circuit Court of
       Plaintiff-Appellant,                                          )       Cook County.
                                                                     )
               v.                                                    )       16 M1-014594
                                                                     )
THE CITY OF CHICAGO,                                                 )       Honorable
                                                                     )       Scott D. McKenna,
       Defendant-Appellee.                                           )       Judge Presiding.

       JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court.
       Presiding Justice Lampkin and Justice Hoffman concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1     Held: We affirm the trial court’s grant of the City’s motion in limine, where appellant
       failed to provide a record sufficient to enable this court to determine whether the trial
       court abused its discretion in granting the motion.

¶2     Plaintiff-appellant Kenyatta Bridges sued the City of Chicago (City) in the circuit court’s

Municipal Division asserting claims for willful and wanton conduct, and civil liability under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and section 23/5(a) of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003 (740 ILCS 23/5(a)

(West 2016)). Plaintiff sought damages for injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of a “rough

ride” in the rear compartment of a police vehicle. Plaintiff alleged that the City, through
No. 1-22-0270

members of the Chicago Police Department, engaged in conduct that was willful and wanton. 1

¶3      Prior to trial, the court granted the City’s motion in limine, which barred plaintiff from

giving his lay testimony that his injuries were caused by the police. After trial, the jury returned a

verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded him $100 in damages. The court entered judgment on

the verdict, plus costs.

¶4      Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion in limine.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 2

¶5                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶6      Initially, we note that the record on appeal only includes the common law record. The

record does not contain a report of proceedings, bystander’s report, or other report for any

proceedings that took place at trial or other hearings. The following summarized facts are taken

from the briefs, the parties’ pleadings, and other documents included in the common law record.

¶7      Plaintiff claimed that after he was arrested by unidentified members of the Chicago

Police Department, he was handcuffed and locked “inside a rear compartment” of a police

vehicle. Plaintiff contended that the compartment was hot, insufficiently ventilated, and lacked

the “capacity to comfortably maintain” him. During his confinement, officers drove around

making “rounds and engaged in tangential errands.” The errands included transporting female

arrestees who were allowed to ride in the cabin of the vehicle, an area intended for passengers.

¶8      The officers took plaintiff on what he described as a “rough ride.” This entailed the

officers operating the vehicle in such a manner as to intentionally cause plaintiff to be jostled and

        1
        Plaintiff fails to identify the names of the officers involved and they were not named in his
complaint.
        2
         In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this
appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon entry of a separate written order.
                                                    2
No. 1-22-0270

thrown about the interior of the vehicle. The “rough ride” combined with the other conditions of

confinement caused plaintiff to injure his head, and according to him, altered his speech and gait.

¶9     Plaintiff filed suit against the City, alleging that in addition to his injuries, his civil rights

were violated based on his race and gender. Prior to trial, the City filed the motion in limine at

issue. The City pointed out that plaintiff’s treating physician had opined that his stuttered speech

and gait issues likely resulted from psychiatric problems. As a result, the City argued that expert

medical testimony was required to establish a causal connection between plaintiff’s injuries and

the conduct of the officers.

¶ 10   The trial court granted the City’s motion in limine, and after plaintiff’s posttrial motions

were denied, this appeal followed.

¶ 11                                       II. ANAYLSIS

¶ 12   Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion in limine. The record on

appeal does not contain a copy of the motion in limine. Nor does the record include a response to

the motion in limine, a transcript of the hearing on the motion, a bystander’s report of the

hearing, or even a copy of the trial court’s order granting the motion.

¶ 13   It is well established that an appellant has the burden to present a sufficiently complete

record on appeal to support his claim of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984). In

the absence of a sufficiently complete record, we will presume “that the order entered by the trial

court was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis.” Id. at 392. “Any doubts

which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the

appellant.” Id.

¶ 14   “A motion in limine is addressed to the trial court’s inherent power to admit or exclude

evidence.” People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365, 369 (1999). The motion is a pretrial motion in

                                                   3
No. 1-22-0270

which a party seeks to exclude inadmissible evidence and prohibit questioning concerning such

evidence, “without the necessity of having the questions asked and objections thereto made in

front of the jury.” Id. at 368. A trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed for an abuse

of discretion. Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill. 2d 504, 521 (1996). A trial court abuses its discretion

only when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or no reasonable person would take

the view adopted by the court, or when its ruling rests on an error of law. People v. Olsen, 2015

IL App (2d) 140267, ¶ 11.

¶ 15   In this case, the trial court’s reasoning in granting the City’s motion in limine appear in

the plaintiff’s brief, i.e., that lay testimony was insufficient to establish a causal connection

between plaintiff’s injuries and the conduct of the police officers. However, “assertions in an

appellate brief cannot serve as a substitute for a proper record.” Coombs v. Wisconsin National

Life Insurance Co., 111 Ill. App. 3d 745, 746 (1982). Thus, while plaintiff’s brief sheds some

light as to the trial court’s reasoning in granting the City’s motion in limine, we cannot rely on

the assertions in the brief absent a proper record on appeal.

¶ 16   Here, in light of the deferential standard of review applicable to motions in limine and

given the fact that we do not have a record of the trial court’s reasons for granting the City’s

motion in limine, we have no basis to find that the court’s ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable.

Pursuant to Foutch, we must presume that the trial court acted in conformity with the law and

had a sufficient basis for its ruling. See, e.g., Centracchio v. Rossi Construction Co., 170 Ill.

App. 3d 1007, 1013 (trial court’s ruling on motion in limine presumed correct on appeal where

appellant failed to include a copy of the motion or a transcript of the hearing on the motion in the

record on appeal).

¶ 17   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                   4
No. 1-22-0270

¶ 18   Affirmed.

                   5