No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net

quality of non-OEM parts. See Baltus v. Weaver Div. of Kidde & Co., 199 Ill.App.3d 821,
837 (1st Dist. 1990) (a witness whose “only recitation of qualifications was 20 years as an
auto mechanic” installing particular parts “may [have] expertise in their [installation], but
it does not mean he has the knowledge, skills, and experience as a manufacturer or designer”
of those parts). 37/
Illinois courts, like federal courts, allow lay witnesses to offer opinion testimony
“‘limited to those opinions or inferences which [were] rationally based on the[ir]
perception[s]’” and sufficiently reliable to be “‘helpful’” to the jury. Freeding-Skokie Roll-
Off Serv., Inc. v. Hamilton, 108 Ill.2d 217, 222 (1985) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 701). Absent
expertise or specialized knowledge, a lay witness’s opinion testimony is admissible,
however, only if it is grounded in his or her “personal observation and recollection of
concrete facts.” Id.
Most of the testimony of plaintiffs’ bodyshop witnesses was not grounded in any
first-hand perceptions or concrete facts. Rather than limiting themselves to opining that non-
OEM parts they had actually installed seemed to fit poorly — an opinion they could have
derived from first-hand experience — plaintiffs’ bodyshop witnesses were permitted to wax
eloquent about the purportedly universal inferiority of all non-OEM parts, including myriad
types of parts that they had never seen. PX 1214 at 53 (“I don’t have to look at it” to know
37/
See also Bogosian v. Mercedes Benz of N. Am., 104 F.3d 472, 477 (1st Cir. 1997) (a
witness’ “extensive experience in automotive repair” does not establish the requisite
“significant expertise — by way of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education —
in relevant areas such as the design or manufacture of automobiles or their components”);
Davis v. International Harvester Co., 167 Ill.App.3d 814, 827 (2d Dist. 1988) (truck driver
not qualified to opine about safety of truck design).
-87-