X hits on this document

181 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

55 / 60

must have known that their “education and enforcement [efforts] were not working” (Tr.

692); and that they had to do more to “provide a reasonable level of safety” to trespassing

children (Tr. 1301). This evidence was, as a matter of law, irrelevant to any fact issue

properly before the jury. As we explain above (at pp. 28-29), it is a commonplace that

some children will expose themselves to dangers, even when they realize the risks of

doing so. Evidence that other children hopped trains neither undermines the objective

obviousness of the danger of moving trains nor detracts from Choate’s admission that he

subjectively understood that danger. The courts of this state already have rejected the

notion that “one child’s prior failure to avoid an obvious risk would make a later child’s

failure to avoid the same obvious risk foreseeable.” Hootman, 129 Ill. App. 3d at 651.

Furthermore, that evidence did not bear on the feasibility of the remedial measures that

Choate argues defendants should have implemented. Defendants made “persistent efforts

to keep youthful trespassers away” and “cannot be called upon to insure” their success,

even if defendants “had reason to know that they were being ignored.” Howard v. Atl.

Coast Line R.R., 231 F.2d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 1956).

C.

The Trial Court Erred In Allowing Dr. Berg To Testify About Adolescent Behavior And Law Enforcement, Two Issues About Which He Had No Expertise.

Expert testimony is admissible only if the “proffered expert is qualified by

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” and “the expert has specialized

knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining

a fact at issue.” Todd W., 394 Ill. App. 3d at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted). Dr.

Berg, a civil engineer, was not qualified to testify regarding child psychology (e.g., the

“maturity” of young people and why trains posed a danger to children, Tr. 1243) or the

effectiveness of defendants’ policing efforts (e.g., Tr. 1377-1378, 1392). Tellingly, the

  • -

    46 -

Document info
Document views181
Page views181
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 20:07:39 UTC 2016
Pages60
Paragraphs1472
Words18760

Comments