Photographic Evidence May Be Found Relevant Without Expert Testimony - Williamson v. Morales
A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision provided additional clarification regarding the admissibility of photographic evidence. At issue was whether or not a judge had correctly allowed photographs taken at the scene of an accident to be admitted into evidence during a Cook County personal injury trial. The appellate court ruled that judge had and upheld the jury verdict in Patricia Williamson v. Luis Morales, 2012 IL App. (1st) 110324-U.
Williamson involved a 2006 car accident in which the defendant Luis Morales rear-ended the plaintiff Patricia Williamson's vehicle. And while Morales admitted to having caused the accident, there was some debate as to the extent of Williamson's injuries. Williamson refused treatment by paramedics at the accident scene, but then did head to the Christ Medical Center Emergency Room just one hour later. And even though her x-rays did not show any fractures, she continued to experience pain and treatment with a chiropractor for four to five months following the accident.
When Williamson brought her personal injury claim against Morales he denied that the car accident was responsible for the extent of Williamson's injuries and her lost time from work. And when Williamson's attorney attempted to produce photographs from the accident scene as a way to demonstrate the severity and nature of the car accident, Morales's attorney objected on the basis that they were not relevant and could not be introduced unless in conjunction with expert testimony. The court agreed and stipulated that the photographs could not be introduced unless the defendant first opened the door to their submission.
Typically, if a driver has received a ticket for causing a 
When someone has been in a major car accident, their injuries are oftentimes fairly obvious and not contested by either party. However, if the 
We often tell new teenage drivers that "driving is not a right, it's a privilege," in an effort to impress on them the many responsibilities that come with driving. When we get behind the wheel we need to be conscious of driving in a way that ensures our safety as well as that of other drivers and pedestrians. It is for this reason that we commit to memory many rules, e.g., the pedestrian always has the right of way, or reduce speed in a school zone. The failure to follow these rules increases the possibility of a 
An Illinois employee who was involved in a car accident during the course of his employment sought to recoup payments from both his employer's workers' compensation policy and its car insurance policy. When the insurance company denied his claims, the employee filed a lawsuit in order to recoup those costs. And while the Illinois Appellate Court allowed some of the plaintiff's claims, it denied others in 
In 
As a general rule, pedestrians have the right of way; however, this does not mean that the driver is always at fault. While car drivers have a duty to look out for pedestrians in a designated crosswalk, they do not have the same duty to watch for pedestrians on a designated roadway. In the 
In most rear-end accident lawsuits, the jury finds in favor of the driver who rear ends the other car. In most of these 
Technology has brought many improvements to our day to day lives, whether by allowing us the convenience of looking up directions when we're lost, or by allowing us to conduct quick research online. However, technology has also created new complications and potentially dangerous situations. For example, before cell phones were invented it was unthinkable that you would write a message while driving, whereas in today's age, texting while driving has become a widespread problem that can lead to potentially deadly
Every day we get into cars with other drivers; however, we rarely think about the fact that we are entrusting our lives into those drivers. In the case of Cheri Razim, John Razim v. Steven R. Erickson, Zachary Stewart, 08 L 351 (Winnebago County), the plaintiff, Cheri Razim, sued the driver of her vehicle and the driver of the other vehicle involved for their cause in a 
An Indiana jury found entered a $4.25 million verdict against a truck driver and his employer for the 
When you are first learning to ride a bike, you take precautions to ensure your safety - perhaps by wearing a bicycle helmet, or by using training wheels. But as we become more confident bicyclists we tend to abandon those safety measures. However, the decision not to wear a bicycle helmet and to engage in dangerous bike riding behavior can lead to potentially fatal 
When it comes to 
In TV courtroom dramas, the story always ends with the jury verdict. However, in real life, sometimes the jury verdict is just the beginning. Lawyers can appeal a jury verdict with the hope of reversing the verdict, or even of obtaining a new trial. And while most appeals only make it to the appellate court level, some are taken all the way to the supreme court.
The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a spoliation claim in a product liability lawsuit arising out of a 2004 car accident. The trial court had ruled that the insurer for the defendant vehicle salvage company did not have to contribute to any settlement that might arise out the salvage company's inappropriate destruction of the relevant vehicle. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling and found that the salvage company's insurance policy did in fact cover any claims arising out of spoliation of evidence. As a result of the appellate court's decision, the defendant's insurance company will now have to pay any reasonable damages arising out of the spoliation claim. 
