Court Opinion

ID: 9531625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:13:28.599166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:32.914278
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WEBBER, dissenting in part: I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority. We are faced with a typical situation in which one of two innocent parties must suffer. In my opinion the plaintiff should be the one. It is elementary that one who intends to file a lawsuit has the burden of preserving the evidence upon which that suit will rest. The majority disparages the defendant’s characterization of VanEtten as plaintiff’s expert. Indeed, he was plaintiff’s expert and was retained at a time when plaintiff knew, or should have known, that the vehicle’s components had been destroyed. To allow testimony under those circumstances is to open wide the gate for the possibility of abuse. While products liability cases are generally tried as a duel of the experts, there is no requirement that expert testimony be presented. The plaintiff’s case may be presented by circumstantial evidence in the absence of the corpus delicti. This court so held. Compare 141 South Main, Inc. v. Magic Fingers, Inc. (1977), 49 Ill. App. 3d 724, 364 N.E.2d 605. I would affirm the trial court in debarring VanEtten from testifying but would reverse its wholesale dismissal of the action and remand for trial with what other evidence plaintiff may be able to produce.