Court Opinion

ID: 9727157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:22:19.25483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:34.247230
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WOLFSON, specially concurring: I agree with the result reached by the majority, and, for the most part, I agree with how it got there, but I write to add two observations. First, the majority’s analysis of the “experiment” by the jury is not complete. The defendant vigorously contended in its brief and in oral argument that the plaintiff asked that the tractor seat assembly go back to the jury. The plaintiff contended she merely asked the trial judge whether he was going to send it back and the judge answered in the negative. While the record on the subject is far from complete, it is fairly apparent from the posttrial colloquy that the trial judge agreed the plaintiff did not ask that the seat assembly be sent back. We should make that finding, because if the plaintiff did ask that the seat assembly be sent to the jury, she has no right to complain about it on appeal. In addition, I think it is important to note the trial judge changed his mind about allowing the jury to have it but did not notify the parties of that decision. Had notice been given, the issue might have been obviated. At least, we would have a better record on the point. My second observation is something of a quibble, but one that I think matters. I agree that Caulfield’s reconstruction opinion should have been stricken, but I would not rely solely on a finding of lack of relevance. Of course, to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. But that is not the complete analysis where expert opinion evidence is offered. The United States Supreme Court has directed federal trial judges they “must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 480, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2795 (1993). Opinions that áre based on guess and speculation, as Caulfield’s were, are unreliable and therefore inadmissible. A persuasive argument can be made that Caulfield’s reconstruction testimony was relevant to the issues in the case. The argument collapses when tested in terms of reliability. See First Midwest Trust Co. v. Rogers, 296 Ill. App. 3d 416, 428, 701 N.E.2d 1107 (1998).