Peterson, Johnson & Murray – Chicago LLC
Chicago Attorneys
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Firm Profile
    • Our Clients
    • Close
  • Attorneys
    • Attorneys
    • Paul A. O’Grady
    • Dominick L. Lanzito
    • Kevin M. Casey
    • Ajay Shah
    • Deanna Rosenbaum Hall
    • Douglas E. Spale
    • Jennifer Turiello
    • Joselyn R. Varghese
    • Miguel E. Larios
    • Patrick G. Connelly
    • Shantel I. Perez
    • Thomas J. Condon, Jr.
    • Close
  • Areas of Practice
    • Areas of Practice
    • Municipal Law
    • Municipal Litigation
    • Civil Rights / ADA / Employment Law
    • Personal Injury & Property Damage
    • Worker’s Compensation Litigation
    • Labor & Employment
    • Reinsurance & Regulatory Practice
    • Appellate Representation
    • Insurance Coverage Issues
    • Corporate & Commercial Law
    • Professional Liability
    • Close
  • Legal Blog
  • Contact Us
March 12, 2019

Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Law Governing Admissibility of Post-Accident Vehicular Photographs

Illinois Supreme Court, Municipal Law

By Shantel Perez 

In a vehicle negligence case, the admissibility of post-accident vehicular photographs has been a point of contention amongst Illinois Appellate Courts with differing opinions on whether photographs of vehicle damage are admissible absent expert testimony. Illinois courts have consistently suppressed photographs in a typical automobile accident unless an expert witness explained to the jury the photograph’s relationship to the claimed injury. The inadmissibility argument is typically made when photographs show minor impact damage to the vehicles. However, if photographs show substantial damage, plaintiffs often attempt to introduce photographs to argue that significant injuries were likely sustained in the accident.

For years, the cases of DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill. App. 3d 530 (2003) and Baraniak v. Kurby, 371 Ill. App. 3d 310 (2007) were followed which associated the needless expansion of an expert rule into the area of photographic vehicular evidence. Courts outside Illinois have addressed the issue in holding that vehicular photographs are generally admissible in a car accident case regardless of expert interpretation.

Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Peach v. McGovern reaffirmed the traditional relevancy analysis in regard to admitting post-accident vehicular photographs. No. 123156, 2019 IL 123156 (Jan. 25, 2019). In Peach, plaintiff brought a claim for personal injuries alleging that defendant was negligent when she rear-ended his vehicle causing his neck injury. Defendant testified that she “spaced out” and “let her foot off the brake just a little bit and tapped into Plaintiff’s truck.” Plaintiff testified that his back bumper was dented, and it looked like defendant’s front end was cracked a little bit. Defendant testified that the license plate on her car was dented. Both plaintiff and defendant testified that the photographs taken of their respective vehicles subsequent to the accident were accurate representations of the condition of their vehicles. The photographs reflected minor damage to both vehicles and all photographs were admitted into evidence over plaintiff’s objections. The court found defendant negligent as a matter of law but left the issue of causation and damages for the jury. The jury entered a verdict in favor of the defendant and awarded plaintiff zero damages. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court decision and the appellate court reversed and remanded for new trial on damages. The appellate court held that the circuit court erred in allowing admission of post-accident photographs of the vehicles absent expert testimony and holding the jury verdict was not supported by the evidence.

Upon review, the Illinois Supreme Court found the appellate court’s reliance on the holding of Voykin which was cited in both the Baraniak v. Kurby and DiCosola v. Bowman cases was misplaced as the Voykin decision was predicated on the admissibility of evidence of a plaintiff’s prior injury. Both Baraniak and DiCosola did not involve prior injuries and the court in both cases improperly applied Voykin’s reasoning to the relationship between vehicular damage and the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s personal injuries. The Illinois Supreme Court held both cases extended Voykin “beyond its reasonable limits” and “to the extent that those appellate cases are inconsistent with the analysis set forth below, they are overruled.”

In light of their decision, Illinois Supreme Court found it necessary to clarify the law governing the admissibility of post-accident vehicular photographs. The necessity being to safeguard the law and not create a rigid rule that photographs of the vehicles involved in a collision are always admissible or that expert testimony is always necessary for such photographs to be admitted. The court highlighted four appellate court decisions which correctly illustrate the application of the rules for the admission of post accident vehicular photographs without expert testimony as follows: Ford v. Grizzle, 398 Ill.App.3d 639 (2010), Fronabarger v. Burns, 385 Ill. App. 3d 560 (2008); Jackson v. Seib, 372 Ill. App. 3d 1061 (2007), and Ferro v. Griffiths, 361 Ill. App. 3d 738 (2005). The decision in each of the cases observed the essential question “in deciding the admissibility of vehicular photographs is ‘whether the jury can properly relate the vehicular damage depicted in the photos to the injury with the aid of an expert,’ which is an evidentiary question that must be resolved by the trial judge.”

The Supreme Court highlights that an item of evidence being but a single link in a chain of proof does not have to prove conclusively the proposition for which it is offered. It is enough if the items could reasonably show the fact is slightly more probable than it would appear without the evidence. If a jury can consider relevant testimony about a vehicle’s speed and impact forces, a jury should also be permitted to consider photographs that depict the damage, or lack thereof, done to the vehicles. In Peach, the post-vehicular photographs were introduced to determine whether the plaintiff was telling the truth about his injuries when there was minor damage to the parties’ vehicles. Plaintiff testified defendant plowed into his vehicle and further stated the defendant impacted him at a rate of speed of about 25 to 30 miles per hour. Given the facts, the trial court could properly have found the pictures, when considered into evidence, were relevant to prove the matters at issue were more or less probable.

While Plaintiffs may view these cases as harmful to their claims, the Illinois Supreme Court attempts to safeguard the rules of evidence and reaffirm a traditional relevancy analysis on the issue of admitting post-accident vehicular photographs. Each accident case is different, and it is imperative that parties be allowed to argue for the admittance of post-accident vehicular photographs if and when it is relevant to the issues in question rather than mandating the use of an expert for interpretation purposes.

Shantel Perez attorney PJM Chicago Lawyer

Shantel I. Perez 

Phone: 312-724-8042
Email: sperez@pjmchicago.com

When the Occasional Storm Strikes: The Window Cannot be Closed to Avoid Adverse Conditions Long Term Solutions for Short Term Rentals

Related Posts

Illinois Applelate Court, Municipal Law

Illinois Municipal Law: Stormwater Fee Upheld by Illinois Appellate Court

Municipal Law

Illinois Municipal Law & the “Leveling the Playing Field for Illinois Retail Act”: We’re in the Money

Illinois Marijuana Law, Municipal Law

Legalization of Marijuana & It’s Impact on Law Enforcement

Search

Categories

  • Firearm Dealer License Certification Act
  • First Admendment
  • FOIA
  • Government Severance Act
  • Gun Trafficking Information Act
  • Illinois Applelate Court
  • Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act
  • Illinois Gaming Expansion Law
  • Illinois Marijuana Law
  • Illinois Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing Act
  • Illinois Raffles and Poker Runs Act
  • Illinois Supreme Court
  • Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act
  • Municipal Law
  • Open Meeting Act (OMA)
  • Prevailing Wage Act
  • Rental Regulations
  • Statue of Limitations
  • Uncategorized

Recent Posts

  • FOIA: Ongoing Murder Investigation Not Enough to Claim Blanket Exemption According to First District Illinois Appellate Court Ruling
  • Illinois Municipal Law: Stormwater Fee Upheld by Illinois Appellate Court
  • Illinois Municipal Law & the “Leveling the Playing Field for Illinois Retail Act”: We’re in the Money
  • Gaming Expansion Law: Illinois Bets Big
  • Illinois Cannabis Legislation Impact on the Workplace

Archives

  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
PJM Law

Contact Us

Peterson, Johnson & Murray — Chicago LLC

Address:
200 West Adams St. STE 2125
Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: 312-782-7150
Fax: 312-896-9318

Attorneys

  • Paul A. O’Grady
  • Dominick L. Lanzito
  • Kevin M. Casey
  • Ajay Shah
  • Deanna Rosenbaum Hall
  • Douglas E. Spale
  • Jennifer Turiello
  • Joselyn R. Varghese
  • Miguel E. Larios
  • Patrick G. Connelly
  • Shantel I. Perez
  • Thomas J. Condon, Jr.
Copyright 2018 Peterson, Johnson & Murray — Chicago LLC | Disclaimer