## Facts

- W. R. Smith was driving a truck on U.S. Route 460 when a truck owned by Ohio Oil Company and driven by its employee, Maurice M. Smedley, entered from a gravel road controlled by a stop sign and struck Smith’s truck near its rear wheels.
- Evidence supported that Smedley failed to stop at the stop sign before entering the highway.
- Smedley admitted he knew before the collision that the truck’s brakes were defective but continued to operate the vehicle.
- Smith suffered severe pelvic injuries.
- At trial, Smith’s physician used x-ray films and a plastic human skeleton model to explain the injuries and compare a normal pelvis with Smith’s fractures.
- The jury returned a verdict for Smith of $50,000, and judgment was entered on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Smedley and Ohio Oil Company were negligent.
2. Whether Smith was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, including based on alleged speeding.
3. Whether the trial court erred by allowing use of a plastic skeleton model, with x-rays, as demonstrative evidence to explain Smith’s injuries.
4. Whether impeachment of Smedley using prior inconsistent statements was improperly admitted.
5. Whether the $50,000 verdict was excessive such that a new trial or remittitur was required.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment for Smith.
- The evidence supported the jury’s finding of negligence, including Smedley’s failure to stop at the stop sign and operation of the truck with known defective brakes.
- Smith’s alleged speeding did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law; it presented a jury question.
- The skeleton model, used with x-rays, was properly admitted as demonstrative evidence because it was relevant and assisted the jury’s understanding of medical testimony.
- Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements was permissible where the proper foundation and procedure were satisfied.
- The damages award was supported by the evidence and was not so large as to show passion or prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Operating a vehicle with knowledge of defective brakes is evidence supporting a finding of negligence.
- Violation of a traffic statute is not conclusive of negligence; it is prima facie evidence, leaving negligence and contributory negligence for the factfinder when the record permits differing inferences.
- Demonstrative exhibits may be used when relevant to an issue and actually explanatory of matters the jury must understand; admission rests largely in the trial court’s discretion absent unfair prejudice.
- A witness may be impeached with prior inconsistent statements when foundational and procedural requirements are met.
- A jury’s damages award will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears to be the product of passion or prejudice or is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a negligence verdict and substantial injury award, holding that the evidence supported liability, contributory negligence was for the jury, demonstrative medical aids were admissible when relevant and explanatory, impeachment by prior inconsistent statements was proper, and the damages did not warrant appellate interference.


Smith v. Ohio Oil Co., 134 N.E.2d 526 (Ill. App. Ct. 1956)