Adrian Smith v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim, which alleged that plaintiff breached an owner-architect agreement by failing to provide architectural services with “professional care.” Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it entered judgment as a matter of law by finding that defendant did not offer sufficient expert testimony because the alleged breach of contract claim did not require expert testimony and, even if it did, the defendant’s expert was competent to testify to the applicable standard of care. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in entering judgment as a matter of law because the defendant did not disclose an expert on the architect’s standard of care in connection with the alleged breach and that the defendant’s expert witness did not provide opinions on the standard of care but rather testified to his opinion as to correct procedures versus testimony based on the recognized standards of competency of the profession. (MIKVA and NAVARRO, concurring)