Klingelhoets v. Charlton-Perrin
2013 IL App (1st) 112412
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Klingelhoets sues for negligence after being struck by defendant Charlton-Perrin’s SUV in Northbrook, Illinois; liability is admitted but damage and future medical costs are disputed.
- The accident occurred Oct 25, 2006; plaintiff was crossing at a green light and was hit as defendant attempted a right turn.
- Plaintiff presented extensive medical evidence of head injury, chronic pain, cognitive and emotional problems, and permanent symptoms.
- Defendant moved pretrial to bar a rebuttal medical witness and to quash depositions; court denied these motions.
- Plaintiff’s coworkers Dobbs and Heerema testified to post-accident observations; doctors Chaisson, Bookhout, Kohn, and Galbraith testified on injuries and future care.
- The jury awarded $713,601.82 to plaintiff, and the trial court denied motions for new trial or remittitur; defendant appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in allowing alleged unfair attacks in opening/closing | Klingelhoets argues statements about Galbraith and defense counsel were improper | Charlton-Perrin contends statements were prejudicial and improper | No abuse of discretion; comments supported by evidence and not reversible |
| Whether court properly allowed Yarrow’s testimony despite disclosure issues | Yarrow testimony would challenge Dobbs about impact details | Defense failed to disclose Yarrow under Rule 213; testimony was illegitimate | No abuse of discretion; Yarrow barred due to discovery nondisclosure and immateriality |
| Whether Heerema, a lay witness, could testify about plaintiff's mental status | Heerema’s observations aided understanding of injuries | Testimony constituted unqualified medical opinions | Court properly admitted lay testimony based on observation; helpful and admissible |
| Whether Dr. Kohn’s rebuttal testimony was proper rebuttal | Kohn rebutted Galbraith with objective testing (SPECT) | Kohn testimony was cumulative | Proper rebuttal; sequence and content supported by Rule 213 and admissible |
| Whether evidence that therapy was costly and stopped due to cost was prejudicial | Evidence explained why treatment ceased and supported damages | Evidence improperly highlighted wealth and prejudiced defendant | Not error; evidence relevant to extent of injuries and future care |
Key Cases Cited
- Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 371 Ill. App. 3d 498 (2007) (standard for reviewing weight of evidence and new trial)
- People v. Phillips, 392 Ill. App. 3d 243 (2009) (opening statement and closing argument discretion)
- Nedzvekas v. Fung, 374 Ill. App. 3d 618 (2007) (sanctions for failure to disclose witnesses; abuse of discretion standard)
- Wilbourn v. Cavalenes, 398 Ill. App. 3d 837 (2010) (discretion in admissibility of evidence; discovery rules)
- Warrender v. Millsop, 304 Ill. App. 3d 260 (1999) (witness disclosure and sanctions considerations)
- Chapman v. Hubbard Woods Motors, Inc., 351 Ill. App. 3d 99 (2004) (rebuttal evidence standard; admissibility)
- Hoem v. Zia, 239 Ill. App. 3d 601 (1992) (rebuttal and sequencing of expert testimony)
- Lewis v. Cotton Belt Route–St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 217 Ill. App. 3d 94 (1991) (scope of closing argument; prejudice standard)
- Town of the City of Bloomington v. Bloomington Township, 233 Ill. App. 3d 724 (1992) (lay witness testimony admissibility)
- Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto & Fleck, Ltd., 368 Ill. App. 3d 41 (2006) (broad latitude in closing arguments)
- Mendez v. Villa, 260 Ill. App. 3d 866 (1994) (impeachment and rebuttal evidence principles)
- Kopczick v. Hobart Corp., 308 Ill. App. 3d 967 (1999) (damages assessment; deference to jury)
- Vanoosting v. Sellars, 2012 IL App (5th) 110365 (2012) (admissibility of financial evidence to prove future damages)