{ "id": 159502, "name": "GEORGE L. JARKE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACKSON PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Jarke v. Jackson Products, Inc.", "decision_date": "1996-06-25", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201495\u20143224", "first_page": "292", "last_page": "301", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "282 Ill. App. 3d 292" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "259 N.E.2d 282", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2895781 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 N.E.2d 958", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3164374 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/99/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "616 N.E.2d 332", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ill. 2d 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "611 N.E.2d 1113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 Ill. App. 3d 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5109417 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/243/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "603 N.E.2d 508", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ill. 2d 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3292317 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/151/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "457 N.E.2d 18", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3122451 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/98/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "535 N.E.2d 410", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. 2d 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "526 N.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 Ill. App. 3d 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5079018 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/172/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "500 N.E.2d 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 Ill. 2d 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5542808 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/114/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "584 N.E.2d 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 Ill. App. 3d 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5264424 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/222/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "633 N.E.2d 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 Ill. App. 3d 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2863752 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/260/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 N.E.2d 447", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "454" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5475820 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "423" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/82/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "631 N.E.2d 322", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "333" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 Ill. App. 3d 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2872466 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "150" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/259/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "505 N.E.2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 2d 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3179258 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "463" }, { "page": "463" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/115/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "642 N.E.2d 1278", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 Ill. 2d 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "631 N.E.2d 1186", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1206", "parenthetical": "finding reversal appropriate only where defendant has been prejudiced by the testimony" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 Ill. App. 3d 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2871389 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "759", "parenthetical": "finding reversal appropriate only where defendant has been prejudiced by the testimony" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/259/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 N.E.2d 722", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 Ill. App. 3d 879", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2620401 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "883" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/182/0879-01" ] }, { "cite": "568 N.E.2d 1373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1376" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 806", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2535108 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "810" }, { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/210/0806-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 N.E.2d 840", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "849" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 Ill. App. 3d 779", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2600885 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "794" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/212/0779-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 N.E.2d 784", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Jiganti, P.J., specially concurring" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Ill. App. 3d 1017", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2506590 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1029", "parenthetical": "Jiganti, P.J., specially concurring" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/192/1017-01" ] }, { "cite": "606 N.E.2d 1228", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Ill. 2d 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "599 N.E.2d 1015", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1021" }, { "page": "1021" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 Ill. App. 3d 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5188968 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "608" }, { "page": "608" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/234/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "441 N.E.2d 1197", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "finding that plaintiff had not waived review of the trial coprt's admission of evidence because it had made a motion in limine to exclude that evidence" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 Ill. App. 3d 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2996044 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "finding that plaintiff had not waived review of the trial coprt's admission of evidence because it had made a motion in limine to exclude that evidence" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/110/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "647 N.E.2d 1092", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1100", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[t]o preserve a claim of error in denying a motion in limine, counsel must also make a contemporaneous objection at the time the offending evidence is offered or statement is made\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 Ill. App. 3d 1075", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 365940 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1087", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[t]o preserve a claim of error in denying a motion in limine, counsel must also make a contemporaneous objection at the time the offending evidence is offered or statement is made\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/269/1075-01" ] }, { "cite": "631 N.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" }, { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 Ill. App. 3d 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2882529 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724" }, { "page": "724" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/258/0718-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 926, "char_count": 18569, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3016475505158757e-07, "percentile": 0.6222606028382349 }, "sha256": "fb5576b69857da54470d9cff92d06c4ee6152579c8b15e578e57847e96e92b93", "simhash": "1:4b2cb9c6e8006c66", "word_count": 3055 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:31.167440+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GEORGE L. JARKE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACKSON PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SCARIANO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis case has previously been before this court, on which occasion we reversed the trial court\u2019s improper granting of defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for trial on the issue of whether the allegedly defective design of the welding helmet worn by plaintiff more easily enabled welding slag to fall into his ear. See Jarke v. Jackson Products, 258 Ill. App. 3d 718, 724, 631 N.E.2d 233, 237 (1994).\nUpon remand, a jury returned a verdict upholding plaintiff George L. Jarke in this product liability claim. Defendant Jackson Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the helmet, appeals, claiming that: (1) plaintiff\u2019s expert testified beyond the scope of his previously disclosed opinions in violation of Supreme Court Rule 220 (134 Ill. 2d R. 220); (2) the jury should have been given defendant\u2019s proposed \"cautionary instruction\u201d; and (3) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nImmediately prior to trial, defendant moved in limine to bar plaintiff\u2019s expert, Dr. Stanley Weiss, from testifying that he believed that the design of the helmet caused molten metal to travel in a channel above the visor and into plaintiff\u2019s ear, causing him severe injury. It claimed that this opinion had not been disclosed in any of his pretrial discovery opinions, relying only upon the helmet\u2019s \"contour\u201d as the alleged design defect, and that it had learned of his reliance on his channel theory only \"two or three days\u201d before trial. The trial judge observed that the ridge above the visor was obvious, concluded that the defendant knew about it, and permitted Dr. Weiss to render his opinion at trial. On appeal, defendant complains that Dr. Weiss was permitted to give a previously undisclosed opinion in violation of Supreme Court Rule 220.\nPlaintiff responds that defendant waived this issue because it did not object to Dr. Weiss\u2019s opinion when it was offered at trial. See Green v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 269 Ill. App. 3d 1075, 1087, 647 N.E.2d 1092, 1100 (1995) (holding that \"[t]o preserve a claim of error in denying a motion in limine, counsel must also make a contemporaneous objection at the time the offending evidence is offered or statement is made\u201d). However, defendant submits that his having made a motion in limine preserved the issue for appeal. See Exchange National Bank v. DeGraff, 110 Ill. App. 3d 145, 441 N.E.2d 1197 (1982) (finding that plaintiff had not waived review of the trial coprt\u2019s admission of evidence because it had made a motion in limine to exclude that evidence).\nThese authorities are in obvious conflict regarding whether a party\u2019s failure to make an objection contemporaneously with the admission of testimony which had been the subject of a denied motion in limine precludes him from appealing the denial of his motion. In any event, assuming, without deciding, that defendant should have objected to Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony at the time it was offered, the record is clear that the court was well aware of defendant\u2019s objection to Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony. Accordingly, we hold that defendant\u2019s written pretrial motion in limine, and his belated objection (made during trial but after Dr. Weiss had concluded his testimony), were sufficient to preserve this issue for our review.\nSupreme Court Rule 220 limits the scope of an expert witness\u2019s testimony as follows:\n\"To the extent that the facts known or opinions held by an expert have been developed in discovery proceedings through interrogatories, depositions or requests to produce, his direct testimony at trial may not be inconsistent with nor go beyond the fair scope of the facts known or opinions disclosed in such discovery proceedings. However, he shall not be prevented from testifying as to facts or opinions on matters regarding which inquiry was not made in the discovery proceedings.\u201d 134 Ill. 2d R. 220(d).\nThe parties disagree as to whether the trial judge may exercise discretion in deciding whether to disqualify an expert witness in cases where this rule is violated. Defendant refers this court to Marshall v. Taylor-Wharton Co., wherein the court recognized that the cases have not been uniform on this issue. Marshall v. Taylor-Wharton Co., 234 Ill. App. 3d 596, 608, 599 N.E.2d 1015, 1021 (1992),\nappeal denied, 147 Ill. 2d 628, 606 N.E.2d 1228 (1992). The Marshall court adopted Justice Jiganti\u2019s view, as expressed in Kosinski v. Inland Steel Co., 192 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1029, 549 N.E.2d 784 (1989) (Jiganti, P.J., specially concurring), and concluded that a trial judge\u2019s discretion was \"severely limited\u201d by the wording of Rule 220 and that such discretion should be exercised only where the facts showed that disqualification of the expert would create \"manifest injustice.\u201d Marshall, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 608, 599 N.E.2d at 1021.\nDefendant urges that this court should follow Marshall. We disagree, for we believe the trial judge\u2019s discretion under Rule 220 to be \"broad\u201d and should not be disturbed absent \"a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.\u201d Zajac v. St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 212 Ill. App. 3d 779, 794, 571 N.E.2d 840, 849 (1991); Huelsmann v. Berkowitz, 210 Ill. App. 3d 806, 810, 568 N.E.2d 1373 (1991); Caruso v. Pine Manor Nursing Center, 182 Ill. App. 3d 879, 883, 538 N.E.2d 722 (1989). We shall proceed accordingly.\nNext, plaintiff denies that Dr. Weiss\u2019s trial opinion violated Supreme Court Rule 220. We note that Dr. Weiss never mentioned \"the ridge above the visor\u201d in any of the pretrial discovery proceedings conducted prior to the week immediately before trial. However, we are not persuaded by plaintiff\u2019s argument that defendant\u2019s deposition questions were insufficient to elicit Dr. Weiss\u2019s reliance on the channeling effect of the visor merely because the magic question, \"which contour?\u201d was not asked. (See footnote 1 of this opinion.) During Dr. Weiss\u2019s deposition, defendant asked him to explain both the basis for his opinion that \"the contour of the helmet directed the metal splash along the edge of the helmet or along the face of the helmet, to the very edge, and into the ear canal,\u201d and also how he determined that the helmet\u2019s contour would cause that to happen. \"[Tjhat\u2019s the way I believe it would go,\u201d is fairly typical of his answers, none of which succeeded in articulating that his reason was that the channelling effect of the ridge above the visor would cause the metal to travel in such a fashion.\nDefendant asserts that, on these facts, Rule 220(b)(1) mandated the complete bar of Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 220(b)(1) (stating that \"[flailure to make the disclosure required by this rule or to comply with the discovery contemplated herein will result in disqualification of the expert as a witness\u201d). However, we disagree that Dr. Weiss should have been automatically barred from giving any testimony in this case because plaintiff did disclose the fact that Dr. Weiss would render his expert opinion at trial and because his deposition testimony, although somewhat delphic, shows that he also disclosed his belief that the contour of the helmet directed molten metal into plaintiff\u2019s ears.\nThe proper inquiry is whether Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony \"went beyond the fair scope\u201d of his previously disclosed opinions and whether the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony. \"In determining whether to allow or exclude the expert testimony, the circuit court may consider the following factors: surprise to the adverse party, the prejudicial effect of the testimony, the nature of the testimony, the diligence of the adverse party, the timely objection to the testimony, and the good faith of the party calling the witness. [Citation.]\u201d Huelsmann v. Berkowitz, 210 Ill. App. 3d 806, 810, 568 N.E.2d 1373, 1376 (1991).\nFirst, we agree with the trial judge\u2019s observation that the fact that the helmet contained a ridge with open ends above the eyepiece was obvious upon its inspection. Further, \"the contour\u201d of an object may be defined as its \"shape, form\u201d or as \"the individual features or the order or arrangement of features of anything having discernable and *** complex structure.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 494 (1986). Accordingly, we find it difficult to conclude that Dr. Weiss\u2019s reliance at trial on the visor\u2019s ridge differed from his deposition opinion\u2019s reliance upon the contour of the helmet significantly enough to be said to have exceeded the \"fair scope\u201d of his previously disclosed opinion or to have surprised defendant in any material way.\nWe further fail to discern how defendant was prejudiced. See Glassman v. St. Joseph Hospital, 259 Ill. App. 3d 730, 759, 631 N.E.2d 1186, 1206 (1994) (finding reversal appropriate only where defendant has been prejudiced by the testimony), appeal denied, 157 Ill. 2d 499, 642 N.E.2d 1278 (1994). Defendant conceded that plaintiff\u2019s reliance on the ridge above the eyepiece was called to its attention several days prior to trial. Defendant thoroughly cross-examined Dr. Weiss regarding his trial opinion, its basis, and its perceived deviation from his prior opinions. Despite defendant\u2019s impeachment efforts, the jury chose to accept Dr. Weiss\u2019s expert opinion. Moreover, defendant also presented expert testimony directly discrediting plaintiff\u2019s visor channel theory. We also observe that the jury was permitted to examine the helmet during its deliberations.\nAccordingly, we cannot agree that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony.\nWhile deliberating, the jury submitted two questions to the judge, one of which was whether it could consider the fact that the helmet did not cover the ear as a design flaw in the helmet. Defendant requested that the trial judge give the jury its \"cautionary instruction,\u201d which charged as follows:\n\"The fact that the welding helmet did not cover Jarke\u2019s ears or did not prevent spatter from entering his ear is not enough to render the helmet unreasonably dangerous.\nUnder the law of Illinois, Jarke must prove that some condition of the helmet affirmatively caused the spatter to enter his ear.\nIt\u2019s not sufficient for him to prove only that the helmet did not prevent that from happening.\nI instruct that you must find against Mr. Jarke and in favor of Jackson Products if the only condition of the helmet upon which you can base your verdict is that the helmet did not cover Jarke\u2019s ears.\u201d\nThe trial judge rejected defendant\u2019s proposed instruction and told the jurors that he could not answer their questions; he could only refer them to the written instructions. Defendant maintains that the jury\u2019s question established that it was confused regarding a point of law, and accordingly, the trial judge was obligated to give additional instructions.\nHowever, our supreme court has held:\n\"In a civil case, it is within the discretion of the trial court to allow or refuse a jury\u2019s request for clarification of instructions. [Citation.] Having correctly instructed the jury, it is not error for the trial judge to leave standing the original instructions. [Citation.] However the trial court\u2019s discretion gives way to a duty to respond where the original instructions are incomplete and the jurors are clearly confused. [Citation.]\u201d Kingston v. Turner, 115 Ill. 2d 445, 463, 505 N.E.2d 320, 328 (1987).\nIn this case, the jury was charged, inter alia, as follows:\n\"The plaintiff claims that he was injured while using the welding helmet and that there existed in the welding helmet at the time it left the control of the defendant a condition which made the welding helmet unreasonably dangerous in one or more of the following respects: The design of the helmet channeled molten metal hitting the front of the helmet towards plaintiff\u2019s ear.\nThe plaintiff further claims that the foregoing was a proximate cause of his injuries.\u201d\nThis charge clearly instructed the jury that the defect alleged by plaintiff was that the helmet\u2019s design channeled molten metal towards his ear and that a verdict in his favor could be returned only if this defect had caused his injury. These instructions were not incomplete and the jury\u2019s question did not obligate the judge to provide additional clarification.\nWe find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge\u2019s rejection of defendant\u2019s \"cautionary instruction,\u201d in his refusal to answer the jury\u2019s question, or in his directive to the jury to refer to the written instructions. See Kingston, 115 Ill. 2d at 463.\nDefendant\u2019s final contention is that the jury\u2019s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. \"A verdict is said to be against the manifest weight of the evidence where it is palpably erroneous and wholly unwarranted [citation], is clearly the result of passion or prejudice [citation], or appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and not based upon the evidence. [Citations.]\u201d Hulman v. Evanston Hospital Corp., 259 Ill. App. 3d 133, 150, 631 N.E.2d 322, 333 (1994). \"The inquiry on appeal is whether the result reached below was one which is reasonable on the facts in evidence, not whether other conclusions might also have been reached. [Citation.]\u201d Lynch v. Board of Education of Collinsville Community Unit District No. 10, 82 Ill. 2d 415, 423, 412 N.E.2d 447, 454 (1980).\nDefendant states that an expert\u2019s opinion cannot be based upon mere conjecture and guess, and alleges that Dr. Weiss had no factual support for his opinions. Gyllin v. College Craft Enterprises, Ltd., 260 Ill. App. 3d 707, 715, 633 N.E.2d 111 (1994); Schultz v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 222 Ill. App. 3d 532, 584 N.E.2d 235 (1991); Dyback v. Weber, 114 Ill. 2d 232, 500 N.E.2d 8 (1986). Although we agree with defendant\u2019s statement of the law, we do not concur in its assessment of Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony.\nNotwithstanding the fact that Dr. Weiss\u2019s opinion was premised upon his belief that molten metal must have landed in the ridge over the visor, we do not find his opinion to be based upon conjecture or guess. Upon defendant\u2019s suggestion that his opinion was based upon assumptions not in evidence, Dr. Weiss responded: \"I am not assuming it because I know the nature of the way the molten metal is ejected from a process such as this. It\u2019s not usually there is one little piece hitting the glass. I mean it is a big blob that can break into other ones as well as other small ones that are coming. I have no doubt that a piece of molten metal wound, up in that crevice.\u201d Upon review of Dr. Weiss\u2019s testimony, we cannot conclude that his opinions were so devoid of content as to render them incapable of supporting the jury\u2019s verdict.\nBecause no witness testified to having seen the molten metal enter plaintiffs ear, defendant claims \"[h]ow it got there is anyone\u2019s guess\u201d and challenges the use of circumstantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdict, citing Royal Elm Nursing & Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 172 Ill. App. 3d 74, 79, 526 N.E.2d 376, 379 (1988) (stating that \"[ajlthough circumstantial evidence will generally suffice whenever an inference may reasonably be drawn from it [citation], the existence of a fact may not be inferred from the evidence when the existence of another fact inconsistent with the first can be inferred with equal certainty from the same evidence\u201d), appeal denied, 123 Ill. 2d 566, 535 N.E.2d 410 (1988). Plaintiff responds that \"circumstantial evidence will suffice whenever an inference may reasonably be drawn therefrom.\u201d Mort v. Walter, 98 Ill. 2d 391, 396, 457 N.E.2d 18 (1983).\nDefendant\u2019s assertion that Dr. Weiss\u2019s opinion constituted a \"guess\u201d is merely the opinion of its own expert, Russell Marhefka. While Marhefka opined that \"anything under the sun\u201d was possible, Dr. Weiss testified otherwise. While defendant uses its expert\u2019s opinion to urge us to conclude that Dr. Weiss\u2019s opinion is so unsatisfactory that it cannot support a verdict, it is not our role on appeal to reweigh the evidence and determine questions of fact which were within the jury\u2019s province to decide. Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 603 N.E.2d 508 (1992). The task of resolving conflicting experts\u2019 opinions is one for the jury. Dabros v. Wang, 243 Ill. App. 3d 259, 611 N.E.2d 1113 (1993), appeal denied, 151 Ill. 2d 562, 616 N.E.2d 332 (1993). Consequently, we are obliged to hold that the jury\u2019s verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nFor all of the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHARTMAN, P.J., and BURKE, J\u201e concur.\nThe record reflects that defendant admitted at trial that it had learned several days prior to trial that Dr. Weiss would rely upon the ridge above the visor. However, how it obtained this information is apparently \"in dispute.\u201d\nPlaintiffs attorney has submitted an affidavit with his brief stating that during the week preceding trial, defendant called and asked him \"which contour\u201d Dr. Weiss would claim rendered the helmet defective. At oral argument before this court, defendant commented that who initiated the phone call was \"in dispute\u201d and suggested that plaintiff had made the call to inform it that Dr. Weiss had adopted \"a whole new theory\u201d regarding the helmet\u2019s allegedly defective condition.\nIt was defendant\u2019s burden, as appellant, to ensure that the record on appeal revealed all facts it claims support its assignments of error. Foutch v. O\u2019Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 459 N.E.2d 958 (1984). Having failed to satisfy that burden, we must disregard both parties\u2019 versions of the disputed phone call.\nPlaintiff has moved to supplement the record by including his affidavit, which motion was taken with the case; we hereby deny it and grant defendant\u2019s request to strike plaintiff\u2019s affidavit because it was not filed with the trial court and it is not, of course, a part of the record on appeal. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill. 2d 405, 415, 259 N.E.2d 282 (1970).\nThe court held in Jarke I that the helmet\u2019s failure to cover the wearer\u2019s ears could not, as a matter of law, render it unreasonably dangerous because this feature was open and obvious. Jarke v. Jackson Products, 258 Ill. App. 3d 718, 724, 631 N.E.2d 233, 237 (1994).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SCARIANO" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C., of St. Louis (Cawood K. Bebout and Kurtis B. Reeg, of counsel), for appellant.", "Robert D. Kolar & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Robert D. Kolar and John R. Fanone, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GEORGE L. JARKE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACKSON PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1\u201495\u20143224\nOpinion filed June 25, 1996.\nGallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C., of St. Louis (Cawood K. Bebout and Kurtis B. Reeg, of counsel), for appellant.\nRobert D. Kolar & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Robert D. Kolar and John R. Fanone, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0292-01", "first_page_order": 310, "last_page_order": 319 }