Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

An expert's opinion as to the cause of an injury is not improper or inadmissible because it is couched in terms of probabilities or possibilities based upon certain assumed facts. (Rodrian v. Seiber (1990), 194 Ill. App. 3d 504, 507, 551 N.E.2d 772, 774, 141 Ill. Dec. 585.) An expert may testify as to ''what might' be the cause of the injury despite any objection that his testimony is inconclusive or speculative.' (Presswood v. Morris (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 513, 517, 388 N.E.2d 844, 848, 26 Ill. Dec. 843.) Counsel may draw the jury's attention to possible deficiencies in the expert's inferences and the information the expert relied upon. (Fullreide v. Midstates Beverage Co. (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 758, 762, 388 N.E.2d 1070, 1073, 27 Ill. Dec. 107.) Most importantly, the jury, once aware of any 'infirmities' in the expert's opinion, can determine his credibility. Rodrian, 194 Ill. App. 3d at 507, 551 N.E.2d at 774.

Use of the word 'possibility' in conjunction with causation does not automatically render the expert's answer inadmissible or improper. (Presswood, 70 Ill. App. 3d at 517, 388 N.E.2d at 848.) Nor is Reynolds' testimony made ...

Register or login to access full content