"Minimal damage" photos in car-crash cases: when are they admissible?

In the latest Tort Trends, Tim Kelly reviews the relevant cases and concludes that -- despite arguments to the contrary by hopeful plaintiffs' lawyers -- trial judges in Illinois have discretion to admit photos showing only minor damage to the plaintiff's car. Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs' bar would prefer that defendants be required to provide expert testimony showing a relationship between damage to the car and injury to the plaintiff (just because the car wasn't hurt much doesn't mean the plaintiff wasn't, they argue). But expert testimony isn't required, at least not since the first district's 2003 ruling in Dicosola v Bowman, Kelly writes. But in a comment to Kelly's article (yes, section members can now comment on newsletter articles!), Bob Park says that recent first district cases "leave little doubt that the [court] has abandoned the rule of trial court discretion in the admission of photographic evidence and now requires expert testimony to admit vehicle photos." A bad thing, he argues. It's an interesting, informative exchange. View it here. For more articles like this, join the Tort Section here.