Court Opinion

ID: 9740612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:38:29.672827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.135321
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE SIMONS, dissenting. I dissent. The opinion testimony of plaintiffs expert was, in my view, founded in large part upon pure speculation and conjecture. For example, to sustain his theory that water fell upon the ice which coated the regulator Hammond testified “What I am trying to say is that there was a sleet storm which was very thick and it was over that regulator and then there was water connected with this too and the sleet on the house would melt as the house was warm and would fall off the eave and this was right where the eave was and that would supply the water in addition to the sleet.” (Emphasis supplied.) Hammond then testified: “I don’t know whether the eaves hung out over the regulator. No, no, tire eaves were gone when I was there but judging from the other houses there and almost all houses have eaves. I know it — .” “I am drawing conclusion from the fact there was a type of house in this neighborhood. They are •all more or less similar.” It was by this reasoning, supported by no evidentiary fact that Hammond placed the regulator in the preeise position under the drip line of the eaves. Hammond testified that he arrived in Sullivan, Illinois, some 12 days after the incident. Among other things he drove around town and had pictures taken of regulators, the vents of which were covered with coffee cans or washtubs. No householder was called to explain why this was done, nor the success or lack of success attained in avoidance of what risk. Hammond was then asked the following question and gave the following answer: “Q. Do you have an opinion on whether there are or were in 1967 any steps taken which could have been taken' with respect to a Rockwell Regulator with a vent in an upward position to prevent the occurrence of water into the interior part of the regulator? A. Yes. There were rather easy ways to overcome the deficiencies of a vent that pointed upward and at the time the thing to do is put a tub, coffee can or any other can like that over it to keep the ■ice out of it and that remedy was taken by scores of Sullivan people at this time and I saw them.” This answer, based on nothing but pure speculation, supplied to the jury Hammond’s opinion that it was a commonplace event, not only for water to get into the regulators, but also to freeze once there. This went to the heart of plaintiff’s contentions. The above conclusions were not based upon any facts in evidence. Nor were there any facts in evidence which “lead the mind with certainty” to the conclusion that what Hammond assumed and stated to be facts, were true. No witness other than Hammond had ever heard of a gas regulator freezing in an open position, and he had never examined a regulator in which this had occurred. The regulator in question was purchased from Rockwell in 1952, some 15 years prior to the occurrence. It was apparently installed in 1955. The plaintiff testified that he had never had any previous difficulty with the regulator during the years that he had owned the house. Joseph A. Palmershim testified that he had been chief engineer of Rockwell Manufacturing Company for 19 years. The type of regulator in question was • manufactured beginning in 1949 and continued until the early 1960’s. Probably somewhere in the millions were made. He had never heard of one freezing in the open position or in a closed position. It is proper for an expert to give an opinion based on facts in evidence. (Miller v. Pillsbury Co., 33 Ill.2d 514, 211 N.E.2d 733.) Here the opinion was clearly predicated upon speculation and guess. It was error to admit Hammond’s opinion. In view of this, and because tire verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, I would reverse.