Summary Dismissal Overturned in Traffic Accident Lawsuit

Roberts v. Highland: Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Evidence in a Bicycle Accident Case

A child who was struck by a vehicle could not remember the accident, but her father’s observations before and immediately after the collision were enough to keep the negligence case alive.

In Roberts v. Highland, 2023 IL App (5th) 220656-U, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District considered whether the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the estate of a driver who allegedly struck a minor riding a bicycle.

The injured child did not remember the circumstances surrounding the collision. Her mother was inside the house and did not witness the incident. Her father was sitting on the back porch and heard the impact, but he did not actually see the vehicle strike his daughter.

Despite that limitation, the father had been watching his daughter ride her bicycle before the collision. After hearing the impact, he observed where his daughter, her bicycle, and the defendant’s vehicle were located. He also testified that his daughter had been riding in the driveway and that she did not ride in the roadway.

The Fifth District concluded that this testimony was not merely speculation. Instead, it provided circumstantial evidence from which a fact finder could draw reasonable inferences about how the collision occurred. The appellate court therefore reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Important:
The appellate court did not determine that the defendant was negligent. It held that the plaintiff presented enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, meaning the case should not have been disposed of through summary judgment.

What Happened in the Bicycle Accident?

On July 28, 2009, Elmer Highland’s vehicle allegedly struck B.R., a minor who was riding her bicycle near her home.

B.R.’s father, George Michael Roberts, was sitting on the back porch at the time. He had been watching his daughter ride her bicycle before the accident. He testified that she repeatedly rode on the sidewalk and then back toward the garage and that he had instructed her to ride only on the sidewalk and driveway.

The father heard a sound that he described as metal and his daughter screaming. He also heard one of B.R.’s friends yelling that B.R. had been hit.

When he looked toward the scene, he could see his daughter on the ground, her damaged bicycle, and Highland’s vehicle. He then went to help his daughter.

The Child

B.R. was riding her bicycle when she was struck and later could not recall the circumstances of the collision.

The Father

Her father was on the back porch, had watched her ride beforehand, heard the collision, and saw the positions of the vehicles and bicycle afterward.

The Mother

B.R.’s mother was inside the house and did not witness the accident.

The Negligence Allegations

The lawsuit alleged that Highland negligently operated his vehicle and struck B.R. The complaint alleged several forms of negligence, including failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to yield, failing to sound the vehicle’s horn, failing to reduce speed, and otherwise operating the vehicle negligently.

Under Illinois negligence law, a plaintiff generally must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff in Roberts therefore needed evidence from which a fact finder could reasonably determine that Highland’s conduct breached a duty and caused B.R.’s injuries.

The Driver Died and the Case Continued Against His Estate

After the lawsuit was filed, Elmer Highland died. His brother, William Highland, was appointed as the special representative of Highland’s estate.

Because the defendant was deceased, the estate raised issues involving the Illinois Dead-Man’s Act. The statute can restrict testimony by an adverse party or a person directly interested in the action concerning certain conversations or events involving the deceased.

The defendant argued that the Dead-Man’s Act prevented B.R. and her parents from providing certain testimony and, separately, argued that the plaintiff lacked a competent witness who could establish how the accident occurred.

The trial court ultimately determined that neither parent was barred from testifying under the Act because they did not have a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome. However, the court concluded that the father’s testimony was insufficient because he did not actually see the collision.

Dead-Man’s Act Issue

The appellate court’s decision was not based on a finding that the Dead-Man’s Act automatically excluded the father’s testimony. The trial court had already determined that the parents were not barred from testifying. The central appellate issue was whether the father’s firsthand observations supplied enough competent circumstantial evidence to prevent summary judgment.

The Crash Report Created a Dispute About Where the Collision Happened

A police crash report included a diagram depicting the accident as occurring in the middle of Pine Avenue. The diagram showed Highland’s vehicle parallel to the roadway and B.R.’s bicycle in the middle of the street.

The father disagreed with the accuracy of that diagram. He testified that the parked vehicles were positioned differently than depicted and that Highland’s vehicle was angled toward the garage rather than positioned parallel to the roadway.

According to the father’s testimony, his daughter and her bicycle were in the driveway after the collision and Highland’s vehicle was also positioned there.

The Key Factual Dispute

The important disagreement was whether the collision occurred in the roadway or in the driveway. If the collision occurred in the driveway, the location of Highland’s vehicle and B.R.’s bicycle could support an inference that the vehicle had left the roadway and struck B.R. there.

Why the Trial Court Granted Summary Judgment

The circuit court recognized that B.R. did not remember the accident and that neither parent saw the precise moment when Highland’s vehicle struck her.

The circuit court concluded that the father could only speculate about what happened immediately before the collision because he did not see Highland strike B.R. The court therefore determined that the plaintiff had not identified a competent witness who could establish the allegations of negligence.

The circuit court granted Highland’s estate summary judgment.

The plaintiff asked the circuit court to reconsider, arguing that the father’s deposition testimony provided enough circumstantial evidence to allow a fact finder to decide what happened. The circuit court denied that request.

What Is Summary Judgment in Illinois?

Summary judgment is governed by 735 ILCS 5/2-1005.

The purpose of summary judgment is not to conduct a trial or determine which side ultimately wins the factual dispute. Instead, the court determines whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

If material facts are disputed, or if reasonable people could draw different inferences from undisputed facts, summary judgment should generally not be granted.

Material Fact

The disputed fact must matter to the outcome of the case.

Evidence

The nonmoving party must point to evidentiary facts supporting the claim.

Reasonable Inferences

Summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable people could draw different conclusions from the evidence.

The Appellate Court Found the Father’s Testimony Was Not Speculation

The Fifth District disagreed with the circuit court’s characterization of the father’s testimony as speculation.

The appellate court emphasized that the father had direct, personal knowledge of several circumstances surrounding the accident. He had been watching B.R. ride her bicycle before the collision. He could see the vehicle. He heard the impact and his daughter’s screams. He heard her friend announce that B.R. had been hit. He then personally observed B.R. on the ground, her damaged bicycle, and Highland’s vehicle.

The father also testified about the location of the bicycle and vehicle and disputed the position shown on the police report’s diagram.

Why that mattered:
The father did not have to personally see the precise moment of impact for his testimony to have evidentiary value. His firsthand observations could allow a fact finder to draw reasonable conclusions about where the collision happened and how Highland’s vehicle came to be positioned there.

Circumstantial Evidence Can Support a Negligence Claim

The appellate court explained that direct evidence is not always required to establish negligence or causation. A plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence when the surrounding facts reasonably support an inference of negligence.

In Roberts, the father’s observations could allow a fact finder to infer that Highland’s vehicle had driven off the roadway and into the driveway, where it struck B.R. and her bicycle.

The appellate court did not decide that this inference was ultimately correct. Instead, it held that the evidence was sufficient to allow a fact finder to consider the competing interpretations.

Why the Court Reversed the Summary Judgment

The Fifth District held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the elements of the negligence claims at the summary-judgment stage.

The court specifically concluded that a fact finder could infer from the father’s testimony that Highland’s vehicle was in the driveway, that B.R. and her bicycle were also in the driveway, and that Highland may therefore have driven off the roadway and struck B.R. there.

Those facts created a genuine issue of material fact. Because summary judgment is not appropriate when material factual disputes or competing reasonable inferences remain, the circuit court’s judgment had to be reversed.

The Appellate Court’s Result

The Fifth District reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment for the estate and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court did not determine liability or damages.

What Roberts v. Highland Means for Illinois Injury Claims

Roberts v. Highland demonstrates why the absence of a person who directly witnessed a collision does not necessarily end a personal injury case.

A plaintiff may be able to use circumstantial evidence from people who observed what happened immediately before or after the accident. The location of vehicles, the location of the injured person, damage to property, statements made immediately after an accident, photographs, diagrams, and other surrounding circumstances can potentially help establish what happened.

At the summary-judgment stage, the question is not whether the plaintiff has already proven every element of the case. The question is whether sufficient evidence exists to create a genuine factual dispute requiring further proceedings.

An Important Limitation

The court’s decision was procedural. It did not find Highland negligent, determine where the collision actually occurred, or award damages to B.R. The case was simply permitted to proceed because the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact.

Talk to a Champaign, Illinois Personal Injury Lawyer

A vehicle accident involving a bicycle or pedestrian can leave important questions about where the collision occurred, how the impact happened, and what evidence can establish negligence. Even when an injured person cannot remember the accident or there is no direct eyewitness to the moment of impact, other evidence may still be important.

Patel Law, PC represents Illinois residents who have been injured in vehicle and bicycle accidents. Our attorneys can review the circumstances of an accident and help determine what evidence may support a personal injury claim.

Contact our Champaign personal injury lawyers to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.

217-384-1111

Visit Our Website