Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Torts

Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company

Supreme Court of Illinois · 1979 · Torts
392 N.E.2d 1 (1979)
Updated
Tortsnegligenceused car dealeraccident reconstructionexpert testimonyeyewitness preferencevehicle speeddemonstrative evidence

Facts

Defendant sold a used 1965 Chevrolet to Cornelius Spradlin, and about three months later the car was involved in a crash when driver John Elder applied the brakes as he approached an intersection. The car crossed the center line, struck another vehicle, left the pavement, hit a pole, and struck plaintiff's two children, killing one and seriously injuring the other. At trial, the parties presented both eyewitness and noneyewitness reconstruction testimony about the car's speed, as well as diagrams based on the accident scene. Plaintiff also sought damages for free surgical services provided to his injured son by Shriners' Hospital.

Issue

Whether reconstruction testimony about vehicle speed was admissible where eyewitness testimony on speed was available and speed was not beyond the ken of the average juror; whether the accident diagrams were admissible; whether defendant's brake expert could testify from exhibits without hypothetical questions; and whether plaintiff could recover the value of free medical services rendered without expense, obligation, or liability.

Rule

Reconstruction testimony may supplement eyewitness testimony only when the matter to be resolved requires scientific knowledge beyond that of the average juror; because vehicle speed is not beyond the ken of the average juror, such reconstruction testimony on speed is inadmissible. Demonstrative evidence must not be misleading, and diagrams that are confusing or based on misleading omissions are inadmissible. An expert may testify from personal examination of exhibits sufficiently representing the subject without hypothetical questions. A personal injury plaintiff may not recover the value of services obtained without expense, obligation, or liability, so the collateral-source rule does not apply to gratuitous medical services.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
At a negligence trial in Peoria, three eyewitnesses testify about how fast Nina Cole's sedan was traveling just before it struck a bicyclist. The defense then calls Omar Velez, an engineer who did not see the crash, to estimate the sedan's speed from skid marks and front-end damage.

Should the court admit Omar's speed estimate to supplement the eyewitness testimony?

Explanation. The majority rule is that reconstruction testimony may supplement eyewitness testimony only when resolving the issue requires scientific knowledge beyond the ken of the average juror. Vehicle speed is not such an issue, so noneyewitness reconstruction testimony on speed is inadmissible when offered to supplement eyewitness accounts.