 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Adams v. Bath and Body Works3/17/2005
Defendants contend that despite the fact that no motion to strike the affidavits was pending, plaintiff had sufficient notice based upon comments made by the circuit court during oral argument on BBW's motion for sanctions. Defendants further argue that the circuit court properly struck the experts' affidavits because they lacked an adequate foundation.
Initially, it is poor practice for a circuit court to simply strike affidavits, sua sponte, without some sort of motion pending, be it oral or written. Botello v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 348 Ill. App. 3d 445, 454, 809 N.E.2d 197 (2004) (finding that it was not "good practice" for the trial court to sua sponte strike affidavits filed in support of a motion to change venue based upon forum non conveniens on the basis that those affidavits contained hearsay). In this case, no defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment against plaintiff, much less a motion to strike his experts' affidavits. Though the circuit court may have intimated an uncomfortableness with the sufficiency of plaintiff's experts' affidavits, "the trial court, as a matter of good practice, should not have intervened before [defendants] first moved to strike the affidavit." Botello, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 454. Thus, in the absence of a motion to strike or a motion for summary judgment, the circuit court erred in sua sponte striking plaintiff's experts' affidavits.
Moreover, we disagree with the circuit court's finding that the affidavits lacked adequate foundation. Generally, the opinion testimony of an expert is admissible if the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a field that has at least a modicum of reliability, and if the testimony would aid the jury in understanding the evidence. Wiegman v. Hitch-Inn Post of Libertyville, Inc., 308 Ill. App. 3d 789, 799, 721 N.E.2d 614 (1999). It is not the function of the circuit court to simply accept blindly the assertion of an expert that his opinions have an adequate foundation; the court must look behind the expert's conclusions and analyze the sufficiency of the foundation. Soto v. Gaytan, 313 Ill. App. 3d 137, 146, 728 N.E.2d 1126 (2000). The admission of an expert's opinion lies within the sound discretion of the circuit court; an erroneous decision will not be reversed absent a finding that the ruling was prejudicial or materially affected the outcome of the trial. Hiscott v. Peters, 324 Ill. App. 3d 114, 122, 754 N.E.2d 839 (2001).
In striking plaintiff's experts' affidavits, the circuit court found that they were "foundationally insufficient to warrant [their] submission to a fact-finder." In a footnote to its order, the court alluded to the specific reasoning behind its decision:
"And, an expert's opinion, like that of any other witness, cannot be based upon mere conjecture, speculation or guesswork. Proffered expert testimony must rest on whether there is sufficient undisputed physical evidence to provide the basic data needed for the principles of physics, engineering or science on which the expert opines. Absent such basic and essential facts, the opinion of any expert is as much speculation, guesswork and conjecture as would be a jury's verdict based on the absence of basic and necessary facts. See, in this regard, Hiscott v. Peters, 324 Ill. App. 3d 114 (2001) and cases cited therein."
It appears from this language that the circuit court did not take issue with the adequacy of the experts' qualifications but, rather, the factual bases for their opinions. Having reviewed both experts' proffered affidavits, we find that the circuit court's finding that the experts' opinions lacked an adequate factual basis was erroneous. In thei
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|