Deaver v. Hickox
1967 Ill. App. LEXIS 892, 224 N.E.2d 468, 81 Ill. App. 2d 79 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an expert's opinion on accident reconstruction to be admissible, the proponent must establish a foundation showing not only that the witness possesses special skills beyond the ken of an average juror, but also that the witness actually applied those skills and scientific principles to the facts, rather than relying on generalized experience or speculation.
Facts:
- Philip F. Deaver was driving a Buick automobile south, while the defendant, Hickox, was driving a Falcon automobile east.
- The vehicles were approaching an unmarked country intersection.
- Standing corn in the northwest corner of the intersection obscured the view for both drivers.
- The Hickox vehicle left 39 feet of skid marks prior to the collision.
- The Hickox Falcon struck the right side of the Deaver Buick within the intersection.
- Following the impact, the Deaver Buick overturned and came to rest on its top in the southeast corner of the intersection.
- There were no competent eyewitnesses to the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Althea Deaver, representing the estates of the deceased, filed wrongful death actions against Hickox in the Circuit Court of Champaign County.
- During a jury trial, the court, over the defendant's objection, admitted the opinion testimony of State Highway Officer Joe McCombs regarding the speed of Hickox's vehicle.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, Deaver.
- The Circuit Court entered judgments against the defendant, Hickox, based on the jury's verdicts.
- Hickox, as appellant, appealed the judgments to the Illinois Appellate Court, with Deaver as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's opinion on the speed of a vehicle, based primarily on personal experience from investigating accidents rather than on the application of scientific principles, meet the foundational requirements for admissibility as expert testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Trapp, J.
No, a police officer's opinion on speed does not meet the foundational requirements for admissibility when it is based on generalized experience and speculation rather than the application of scientific principles. The court held that for such expert testimony to be admissible, there must be a showing that the witness possesses special skills in areas like physics or mechanics and, crucially, that the witness actually employed those skills in their analysis. Here, the officer admitted to the judge that his opinion was a 'speculation' based more on his experience with vehicle damage than on his education or any scientific calculation. The record lacked any evidence that the officer used a reliable methodology or analyzed specific factors to reach his conclusion, rendering his opinion 'authority by assertion.' Without a proper foundation explaining the basis of the opinion, the jury has no way to properly weigh the testimony, making its admission erroneous.
Dissenting - Craven, P. J.
Yes, a police officer's opinion on speed meets the foundational requirements, and its admission is within the trial court's discretion. The dissenting judge argued that the officer's extensive experience, including nine years of service and the investigation of 450-500 accidents, along with his specialized training, provided a sufficient foundation for his testimony. Citing precedents like Miller v. Pillsbury Co. and Thomas v. Cagwin, the dissent contended that such expert opinion is essential to aid the jury in drawing proper inferences from the physical evidence, especially in the absence of eyewitnesses. Any questions regarding the officer's specific methodology or the extent of his qualifications should go to the weight the jury assigns to the testimony, not to its fundamental admissibility.
Analysis:
This decision refines the standard for admitting expert accident reconstruction testimony in Illinois, emphasizing the need for a rigorous foundational showing. It shifts the focus from merely accepting a witness's credentials (e.g., years as an officer) to scrutinizing the methodology behind the opinion. The case establishes that an expert's conclusion must be the product of reliable principles and methods actually applied to the facts, not just an intuition born of general experience. This ruling serves as a gatekeeping directive for trial courts, requiring them to ensure that expert opinions are based on demonstrable expertise and analysis before they can be presented to a jury, thereby preventing speculation from being admitted as evidence.
