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

videotape — which showed non-OEM bumpers shattering in impact tests — for the jury on
the ground that plaintiffs’ lay opinion witnesses had relied on these materials in forming
their opinions. R. 4405-06, 12008-09. That decision was wrong as a matter of law. As
explained above, lay opinion witnesses may only testify based on their own personal
observations and experience and therefore are not allowed to rely on materials like the
Consumer Reports article and video in forming their opinions — let alone testify about such
materials. See Novak, 163 Ill.2d at 103.
Furthermore, the court permitted plaintiffs to tout the Consumer Reports material far
beyond the confines of the limited purpose for which it was introduced. The material was
clearly not admissible as substantive evidence: plaintiffs made no attempt whatsoever to
prove that any of the parts depicted in the video or discussed in the article had ever been
installed on a State Farm-insured vehicle. In addition, State Farm never had an opportunity
to cross-examine either the authors of the article or the source of the videotaped images.
Nevertheless, plaintiffs were repeatedly allowed to use the Consumer Reports material as
if it were substantive evidence. For example, plaintiffs’ counsel cited sections of the article
to a State Farm witness, asking several times “Do you disagree with the scientists at
Consumer Reports on that statement?” R. 7680-84, 12020. In closing argument, plaintiffs
mentioned the material at least five times, referring to it as “the Consumer Reports magazine
article that is not in evidence, but that you heard about,” R. 12990, and responding to State
Farm’s argument that plaintiffs had not introduced evidence about specific non-OEM parts
with the assertion that “[i]ts not true, however, to say you didn’t see any parts. You saw
them in the Consumer Reports video. You saw them.” R. 12979; see also R. 12977-78,
-104-