Smith v. Champaign Urbana City Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1969
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 11081
• Citation: 116 Ill.App.2d 289,252 N.E.2d 381
• Parties: Charlene SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAMPAIGN URBANA CITY LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 381

252 N.E.2d 381

116 Ill.App.2d 289

Charlene SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAMPAIGN URBANA CITY LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 11081.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Nov. 6, 1969.

Noel, Middleton & Craver, Urbana (Kenneth E. Baughman, Urbana, of counsel), for appellant.

Hayes & Moore, Robert P. Moore, Champaign, for appellee.

CRAVEN, Justice.

This appeal from a judgment entered for defendant upon a directed verdict in a small-claims action before a magistrate, arising out of property damage to an automobile, raises two questions as to evidence. First, what evidence is required to raise the presumption that paid auto repair bills are reasonable and necessary expenses for repairs? Second, whether the formal rules of evidence apply to a suit filed as a small claim under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 282.

Plaintiff sued in a small-claims action for property damage to her automobile allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant's employee. At the trial plaintiff offered evidence of a bookkeeper at the garage where her car was repaired. The bookkeeper testified that she had a repair bill which her books showed paid.

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was offered as the repair bill and Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 as a ledger sheet. The bookkeeper testified that Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 was the repair bill for plaintiff's car, and that she had made the entries on the ledger sheet (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4).

Defendant objected to the admission of Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 since the witness could not identify all of the entries on the bill, since no repair estimate accompanied the exhibit, since the exhibit contained the writing '100 Ded. Chicago Mtr. Club.', and the exhibit showed replacement of the right-rear axle although plaintiff had not testified to any damage to the right side of her car.

Defendant also objected to the admission of Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 because the bookkeeper could not identify and itemize all of the items there listed and because the exhibit did not itemize the parts or labor, but contained only invoice numbers and prices.

The trial court sustained the objections to Plaintiff's Exhibits No. 2 and No. 4, and granted a motion for directed verdict for defendant for want of proof of damages.

It has been the long-followed rule in Illinois that a paid automobile repair bill is admissible in evidence without other foundation as prima-facie evidence of the necessity and reasonableness of such repairs. Byalos v. Matheson, 328 Ill. 269, 159 N.E. 242 (1927); Finch v. Carlton, 249 Ill.App. 15 (1928); Singer v. Cross, 257 Ill.App. 41 (1930); Schmidt v. Sinclair, 342 Ill.App. 484, 97 N.E.2d 129 (1st Dist.1951).

It will be noted that Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 (the ledger sheet) was shown to be an original entry made by the bookkeeper in the regular course of business. Under such foundation proof, this exhibit clearly was admissible.

No doubt the rule of prima-facie proof was developed to obviate the necessity of producing at a trial the garage repairman unless some evidence is introduced that the bill is faulty. It is a reasonable rule, eliminating unnecessary cost to parties and inconvenience to the public, and can be...