# Jacobs v. Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc.

> Appellate Court of Illinois · May 18, 2017 · 2017 IL App (1st) 151107

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4169726

## Case

- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** May 18, 2017
- **Citations:** 2017 IL App (1st) 151107
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4169726

## Opinion text

Digitally signed by
Reporter of Decisions
Illinois Official Reports Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and
integrity of this
document
Appellate Court Date: 2017.05.18
09:53:52 -05'00'

Jacobs v. Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 151107

Appellate Court MARC M. JACOBS, and DEBORAH JACOBS, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Caption v. YELLOW CAB AFFILIATION, INC., and CORNELIUS C.
EZEAGU, Defendants-Appellants.

District & No. First District, Fourth Division
Docket No. 1-15-1107

Filed March 16, 2017

Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 15-L-04995; the
Review Hon. Daniel J. Lynch, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on Steven R. Bonanno, Carlton D. Fisher, and Anne C. Couyoumjian, of
Appeal Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, and Richard C. Godfrey, R. Christopher
Heck, and Catherine L. Fitzpatrick, of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, both of
Chicago, for appellant Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc.

Kevin Q. Butler, Cornelius E. McKnight, Stanley A. Kitzinger,
Nathan P. Karlsgodt, Joanne M. Krol, and Bryan T. Butcher, of
McKnight Kitzinger & Pravdic LLC, of Chicago, for other appellant.

Robert A. Clifford, of Clifford Law Office, and Timothy S. Tomasik
and Patrick Giese, of Tomasik Kotin Kasserman LLC, both of
Chicago, for appellees.
Webster Chamberlain & Bean LLP, of Washington D.C. (Arthur L.
Herold, of counsel), for amicus curiae Taxicab, Limousine &
Paratransit Association.

Panel JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.
Presiding Justice Ellis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Cobbs dissented, with opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc. (YCA), was sued as the apparent principal of Chicago taxicab
driver Cornelius C. Ezeagu, whose alleged negligence while exiting a highway caused a high
speed crash and severe traumatic brain injuries to his passenger, attorney Marc M. Jacobs.
YCA and Ezeagu now appeal from a $21.98 million jury verdict and judgment in favor of
Jacobs and a $3.96 million award to his wife, Deborah Jacobs. YCA contends the trial court
erred by (1) letting the Jacobses proceed on claims of apparent agency; (2) excluding evidence
that the cab’s appearance, which was the basis for the apparent agency allegations, was
involuntary and mandated by Chicago ordinance; (3) giving a jury instruction relevant only to
medical negligence claims; and (4 and 5) allowing evidence and a jury instruction as to the
passenger’s purported habit of taking YCA vehicles so that he could show, despite having no
memory of the evening, that he had deliberately chosen the YCA vehicle. Ezeagu, who
contends the accident was caused by his passenger’s sudden urging to exit the highway when it
was too late to safely do so, argues it was error to (1) allow an accident reconstruction expert to
speculate about the cab’s highway speed despite eyewitness testimony, (2) allow the passenger
to put on testimony that he was a man of “careful habits,” (3) give a confusing jury instruction
about the passenger’s habit of taking YCA cabs, (4) refuse a special interrogatory on sole
proximate cause, and (5) reject a motion for remittitur of the wife’s award for loss of
consortium. We allowed Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association (TLPA) to file an
amicus curiae brief. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 On August 31, 2005, at approximately 8 p.m., Ezeagu was parked in a cabstand in
Chicago’s River North neighborhood, across the street from the Joe’s Seafood restaurant
where Jacobs was having dinner with one of his long-term clients. As the client, Jean Zielinski,
was departing in her own vehicle, Jacobs crossed the street, got into the back of Ezeagu’s taxi,
and asked to be taken home to Hinsdale, Illinois, which is a community southwest of Chicago.
¶3 Later, at about 8:45 p.m., Ezeagu lost control of the minivan on the cloverleaf exit ramp
leading from northbound Interstate 294 (I-294) to Hinsdale. The posted highway speed limit
was 55 miles per hour, and the cloverleaf’s posted limit was 25 miles per hour. Opposing
experts in accident reconstruction differed only somewhat in their opinions of the vehicle’s
actual speeds. The Jacobses’ expert, Michael E. O’Hern, determined the cab was moving 60 to
70 miles per hour on the highway and had decelerated only to 58 miles per hour when it left the
banked edge of the cloverleaf. YCA and Ezeagu’s expert, Roger W. Barrette, calculated a

-2-
range of 55 to 60 on the highway, thus, leaving open the possibility that Ezeagu was not
speeding on I-294, but was nonetheless moving at 53 or 54 miles per hour when he lost control
on the cloverleaf. After slipping beyond the curved ramp, the speeding taxi went airborne for
32 feet, struck the ground and continued forward over a grassy drainage area, and then crashed
into a concrete retention wall at either 43 or 46 miles per hour according to the Jacobses’ expert
or 47 miles per hour according to the defense expert. Ezeagu stepped out from the vehicle, fell
down, and was initially unable to stand. Other motorists came to assist and called for
emergency responders, and then the driver was able to call his brother, Matthew C. Ezeagu,
who was the owner of the minivan and its Chicago cab license.
¶4 Because Matthew’s corporation, Zegus, Inc. (Zegus), paid weekly fees to affiliate the cab
with YCA, it was painted in YCA’s all-over, bright yellow color scheme and bore the YCA
logo. YCA did not own vehicles or Chicago cab licenses or employ drivers. Instead, pursuant
to local ordinance, YCA was an “Affiliation” that provided its membership of cab license
owners “with a Chicago business address, telephone number registered to the affiliation, color
scheme where applicable, a trade name or emblem where applicable, a two-way radio dispatch
system, insurance and the designation of an authorized registered agent.” Chicago Municipal
Code § 9-112-010(a) (amended Nov. 15, 2000) (section setting out “Definitions”). The
ordinance further provided that “All taxicab vehicles belonging to a single affiliation must
display that affiliation’s color scheme and logo.” Chicago Municipal Code § 9-112-360(a)
(added Jan. 18, 2012) (section regarding “Taxicab vehicle color schemes”).
¶5 Emergency medical responders found Jacobs on the floor of the minivan, behind its front
seats. He was unresponsive, his breathing was slow and labored, and his jaw was too tightly
clenched for intubation, which were indications that he had suffered serious head trauma and
was in need of critical injury care. In the ambulance, Jacobs scored only 5, and then only 3, on
the Glasgow Coma Score, with 3 being the lowest possible score for a living person. Jacobs
subsequently filed this negligence suit and went to trial on a third amended complaint, which
included one count against Ezeagu, one count against YCA, and his wife’s two counts of loss
of consortium.
¶6 It is undisputed Jacobs had no memory of a five-week period that began about a week
before the accident. Since he could not testify about what occurred on that evening in late
August but needed to prove that he had deliberately chosen the YCA vehicle, Jacobs intended
to put on evidence of his past behavior and argue in part that he continued his practice. The trial
court denied YCA’s motion in limine No. 12 to bar the Jacobses from presenting habit
evidence. The court also denied Ezeagu’s motion in limine to bar the Jacobses’ accident
reconstruction expert from testifying about the highway speed of the cab, despite Ezeagu’s
argument that the expert’s opinion was unnecessary when there were eyewitness accounts. In
addition, the trial court granted the Jacobses’ motion in limine No. 23 to bar evidence of
Chicago’s taxicab regulations affecting the cab’s appearance and of the contractual
relationship between YCA and the cab’s owner, Zegus, on grounds that whether there was an
actual agency was not relevant to claims alleging the appearance of agency.
¶7 The jury trial lasted just over two weeks in March 2015 and included evidence about the
night of the accident as well as Jacobs’s subsequent medical care, his inability to continue
practicing law, and difficulties in his relationship with his wife. The following summary
excludes details of his medical treatment and employment and focuses on the evidence
relevant to the appellate arguments.

-3-
¶8 Zielinski testified that prior to the accident in 2005, she became Jacobs’s client in 1996
when she was a vice president and manager in a commercial real estate group of Wells Fargo
Bank and had retained Jacobs to write loan documents for the 20 to 30 large commercial loans
which she was closing every year. Jacobs’s office was across from hers on Franklin Street in
Chicago, and at least 40 to 50 times a year, they met at the cabstand on his side of the street to
travel together to lunch or dinner meetings or to her clients’ offices. Jacobs would always
select a Yellow Cab and would have them step out of the queue if necessary to wait for a
Yellow Cab. Because Jacobs was paying their cab fare, Zielinski never questioned his
insistence on Yellow Cabs and “just figured, you know, everyone has their quirks” and that
“[Jacobs] was a Yellow taxi man like [Zielinski] flew United for business all the time.” She
never saw Jacobs take a taxi other than a Yellow, except for once when they were in San
Francisco. On the night of the accident, Jacobs waited with her outside the restaurant until the
valet returned with her car, she offered to take Jacobs to the train station, as she sometimes did,
but he declined, saying to her, “I’m going to go grab the Yellow cab,” since there was one
waiting across the street.
¶9 Ezeagu, who was born in 1972, testified that he became a licensed chauffeur about four
months before the accident. To qualify for the Chicago license, he took a course in 2005
conducted by the municipality at Harold Washington College, addressing road safety and other
topics, and then passed an exam. He had also taken a two-hour course at YCA’s headquarters
on how to use the Gandalf system, and afterward YCA assigned him a personal number which
he could enter into the Gandalf if he “need[ed] a fare.” He subsequently leased Chicago cab
No. 160 from his brother’s corporation. Ezeagu had been parked in the cabstand for about 5 to
10 minutes and become the first cab in line by the time Jacobs walked across the street from the
restaurant. After Jacobs asked to be taken to Hinsdale and Ezeagu said he did not know the
way, Jacobs responded that he would provide directions as they went. Complying with his
passenger’s instructions, Ezeagu then drove to Lakeshore Drive, merged onto Interstate 55,
and proceeded onto northbound I-294. Ezeagu then asked where they would be exiting and
Jacobs responded, “[K]eep going, I will direct you.” Jacobs, however, was “with his phone”
until moments before the crash when he screamed “Get off here,” meaning that Ezeagu should
take the exit. At the time, Ezeagu was driving “in the second lane to the right,” so he “quickly
tried to get into the right lane to *** enter the ramp.” However, he lost control of the minivan
as he entered the cloverleaf exit ramp, at “maybe like 50 [mph].”
¶ 10 Ezeagu’s account differed to some extent from that of eyewitness Ruben Arce, who
testified that at about 8:45 p.m., he was riding in the passenger seat of a commercial box truck
heading north in very light traffic on I-294. Arce’s box truck was in the far right lane of the four
northbound lanes, moving at about 55 to 60 miles an hour, which was slightly slower than the
car traffic. Arce noticed the yellow taxi because, without signaling, it “just swerved to the
right” and “cut in front” of Arce’s truck, moving all the way from the far left lane to the far
right lane, off the highway, and into a ditch. This occurred about a quarter of a mile before the
Ogden exit and “it didn’t seem like [the taxi driver] was making an exit.” Arce’s truck was
“doing at that time between 57, 58—between 55, 60” and the taxi “was going faster than
[that].” Arce did not see any brake lights, and it appeared that the driver actually sped up in the
ditch because the taxi flew up before landing on the ramp and continuing forward across the
grassy area until it hit the wall.

-4-
¶ 11 The plaintiffs’ certified crash reconstruction expert was Tinley Park police officer O’Hern,
who supervises the police department’s accident reconstruction team and has reconstructed
more than 1000 accidents, most of them involving serious injuries or fatalities. O’Hern
reviewed the Illinois police reports, reconstruction report, and photographs; read depositions;
inspected and took measurements of the 2003 minivan and an undamaged exemplar; and,
surveyed the actual crash site, which he was able to pinpoint based on the police photos and
gouges that the cab made when it struck the concrete wall. This information enabled him to
create a diagram of the scene and use crash data created by the National Highway Traffic
Association, which led O’Hern to conclude that the speed of the taxicab was between 43 and
46 miles per hour when it hit the concrete wall. Then, working backwards through the event, he
determined the cab’s speed when it failed to navigate the curved exit ramp and vaulted into the
air for approximately 32 feet. Depending on how much the driver had braked, the cab must
have been traveling 57 to 71 miles per hour on the highway, but most likely 60 to 70 miles per
hour, before it veered off the exit ramp. Therefore, the cab had been moving faster than the
posted highway speed limit of 55 miles per hour and faster than the exit ramp posted speed of
25 miles per hour. If Ezeagu had been traveling at 55 miles per hour as he stated in a
deposition, and had fully braked, then the cab would have travelled less than 252 feet, instead
of striking the concrete barrier which was 336 feet from the roadway. When asked whether he
had used and believed the eyewitness Arce’s testimony, O’Hern answered affirmatively:
“They said they were traveling about the same speed as traffic. Well, [I-294] when
it’s light traffic or medium traffic as they said, it doesn’t travel 55 to 60. It travels
around 70.
So in terms of they’re traveling with traffic, but they’re only going 55 to 60, they
also said that the taxicab accelerated to get in front of them, which would put the
taxicab going faster than 60. Their testimony is consistent with my findings.”
¶ 12 O’Hern was also asked about testimony indicating the cab and the eyewitness were
traveling with the flow of traffic. O’Hern said that as a police officer for almost 26 years, he
knew that the flow of traffic is “usually 10 miles an hour or more over the speed limit on a
highway, and it’s usually a lot more[,] being realistic here” and also that a traffic study for the
tollway system had shown that the average speed was 70 miles an hour.
¶ 13 The defendants’ certified crash reconstruction expert, Lake Villa police department officer
Barrette, indicated he had 30 years experience in law enforcement, extensive training in
mechanical engineering and accident reconstruction, and was part of Lake County’s major
crash assistance team, which is a 40-member team of accident investigators, any one of whom
may be called to near-fatal and fatal accidents in Lake County, Illinois, to investigate and
recreate the crashes. Together, Barrette, O’Hern, and several lawyers visited the crushed
vehicle and the crash site to record their observations and measurements. The two experts used
essentially the same information and processes as they worked backward through the event to
form their opinions. Although O’Hern determined Ezeagu’s collision speed with the wall was
43 miles per hour, Barrette determined it was 47 miles per hour, because the cab not only
struck the concrete, but also had sufficient residual energy to then shift 10 feet to the left.
Barrette and O’Hern also made different assumptions about how strongly the driver depressed
the brakes as the cab slid over the grass. O’Hern believed Ezeagu braked somewhat, but
Barrette concluded there was no evidence of braking. This was one of the reasons O’Hern
calculated slightly higher speeds than Barrette did for the cab as it left the cloverleaf and when

-5-
it was on the exit ramp of the highway. Barrette also said eyewitness Arce testified that the cab
was moving 55 to 60 miles an hour on the exit ramp.
¶ 14 The vehicle owner (Matthew Ezeagu) testified that as an affiliate of YCA, he had to paint
his white Chrysler Town & Country minivan a certain color and then have the vehicle
approved by YCA. He chose to have the paint applied by a body shop in the Rogers Park
neighborhood and then took the minivan to YCA for its approval. He was then able to purchase
a YCA logo from YCA and have it affixed to the cab’s door, purchase a YCA radio, and make
use of YCA’s credit card system. He chose to affiliate with YCA because it was “one of the
more popular affiliations,” and the YCA logo denoted quality and good customer service. He
paid weekly fees to YCA, and if he did not make the payments, their relationship would “be
cancelled.” Inside the cab, visible to the passenger was a license card or “hard card” that
informed the passenger how to contact the city’s consumer services office with any complaints
and stated Zegus was the owner of the cab and cab medallion No. 160.
¶ 15 Jacobs testified that his habit of taking Yellow Cabs started in the late 1980s when his work
required him to use a lot of cabs. Chicago cabs seemed to be either Checker or Yellow, and he
had a bad experience with a Checker driver. Jacobs recalled:
“I was in a Checker cab with a driver who was very reckless. I kind of feared for my
life. He was making unusual moves and cutting off other cars. It was a terrible
experience.
I am a very risk adverse person. So I thereafter just went for Yellow cabs. And they
were everywhere. It didn’t matter if I wanted to stick with taking Yellow cabs all the
time because you could always get one. They were everywhere.
So even after the nice bloated style sedans got shrunk down to normal sedans, I still
had good experiences with Yellow. They were cleaner. They were well maintained.
The drivers were responsible. They were my cab company.”
¶ 16 During this time period, Jacobs thought that the drivers were employees of Yellow Cab. He
also testified that his loyalty to “the brand of Yellow Cab” was reinforced when he observed a
lot of other taxis during his walks from the Metra station and noticed that the back seats of
those vehicles were dirty and the cabbies were “driving a little dangerously.” When asked
whether he had chosen Ezeagu or Yellow Cab on the night of the accident, Jacobs responded,
“Since Yellow Cab was my cab company, then I can say without a doubt I was relying on
Yellow Cab as I had hundreds of times before.”
¶ 17 Jacobs’s cell phone records did not support Ezeagu’s account of the accident. In 2005,
Jacobs’s employer did not provide a cell phone, but he had a personal “flip” (hinged or
clamshell) style cell phone which he used infrequently. His phone records indicated that on the
morning of the accident, Jacobs made two calls around 8 a.m. and that in the evening he made
four calls. At 7:37 p.m., Jacobs dialed his voicemail account for two minutes, called home at
8:14 p.m. for five minutes, called a friend’s number at 8:19 p.m. for two minutes, and then
called voicemail again for one minute beginning at 8:25 p.m. Depending on traffic, it would
have taken 35 to 45 minutes to drive from Grand Avenue and Lake Shore Drive to I-294 and
Ogden Avenue.
¶ 18 Jacobs also testified that when he worked late at the office, he would take a Flash Cab
home because he could pay for the cab fare and tip with a voucher which his law firm would
then bill back to a particular client.

-6-
¶ 19 Robert William Ellis was the manager for customer services at YCA. Ellis died before the
trial, but portions of his discovery deposition were read into the record. Ellis explained that
YCA contractually authorized and required its affiliated taxicab medallion holders to use the
YCA color scheme and logo on the exterior of their cabs. The yellow paint and logos would be
affixed by a “qualified shop” rather than by YCA. YCA also provided its affiliates with “free”
car washes at its own facility and with Gandalf radio calls, which were fare requests that a
driver could choose to accept or not accept. Each affiliated cab owner paid YCA weekly for the
relationship. Ezeagu leased cab No. 160 from his brother’s corporation and had no direct
relationship with YCA. Inside the cab, in plain view of the passenger, were Ezeagu’s
chauffer’s license and the “hard card” identifying the brother’s corporation, Zegus, as the
owner of cab No. 160.
¶ 20 John Moberg, the president of Wolley Cab, Inc., doing business as Checker Taxi
Affiliation, had been in the taxicab industry for well over 30 years, beginning as a driver for
Checker Taxi Company in 1978 and then in various management positions with Checker Taxi
Company and Checker Taxi Association. Moberg said he was familiar with the appearance of
Chicago cabs when the accident occurred in 2005 and when he testified during the 2015 trial.
He was shown 20 recent photographs of 10 different Chicago cabs, including Blue Ribbon
Taxi Association, Inc., Checker Taxi Affiliation, Inc., Choice Taxi Association, Inc., City
Service Taxi Association, Dispatch Taxi Affiliation, 5 Star Taxi Association, Koam Taxi
Association, Inc., Service Taxi Association, Inc., Sun Taxi Association, Inc., and Top Cab
Association. The photos showed a full view of each vehicle and then a closer view of the
vehicle’s “insignia,” logo, or emblem on the right rear door. Moberg confirmed that, in most
instances, the logos or emblems used in 2015 had been identical in 2005. Moberg also
indicated that as soon as a passenger “sits in the back [seat] of the cab,” “the hard card that is
assigned to every particular car, which describes the owner of that taxi” would be “visible” to
the passenger.
¶ 21 Prior to closing arguments, YCA unsuccessfully moved for a directed verdict on grounds
that the plaintiffs failed to prove two of the three elements of an apparent agency claim,
including that YCA had affirmatively held out the driver as its agent on the night of the
accident and that Jacobs relied on that appearance when he chose the cab, as opposed to merely
getting into the closest, most convenient cab.
¶ 22 In closing arguments, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that in 2005, YCA-affiliated cabs
were marked with the same “iconic emblem” that had been painted on Yellow Cab Company's
vehicles when Jacobs first moved to Chicago in the 1980s and started preferring that brand of
taxicab. Counsel argued that YCA held out “history” and that Jacobs was loyal to the “brand”
when he “selected those cabs for over 15 years.”
¶ 23 After deliberations, the jury returned its verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor, in the total amount
of $29.5 million which was reduced by 12% for the passenger’s contributory negligence. The
jury also answered three special interrogatories in the plaintiffs’ favor: (1) “Did Yellow Cab
Affiliation, Inc., hold itself out as a provider of taxicab services?” (2) “Did Marc Jacobs know,
or should he have known, that Cornelius Ezeagu was not an employee of Yellow Cab
Affiliation, Inc.?” and (3) “Did Marc Jacobs rely on Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc., to provide
him taxicab services?”

-7-
¶ 24 YCA filed a posttrial motion seeking judgment or a new trial. The motion reiterated YCA’s
prior arguments and the trial court denied the motion. YCA immediately filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition, and then, with the bankruptcy court’s authorization, this appeal.
¶ 25 YCA’s main contention is that it did not “hold out” Ezeagu as its agent and that allowing
the Jacobses to maintain and recover on a tort claim against YCA on the basis of the
appearance of the cab was error, because the interior and exterior appearance of the vehicle
was dictated by the comprehensive taxicab regulations found in chapter 9-112 of the Municipal
Code of Chicago (Code). Chicago Municipal Code § 9-112-010 et seq. (amended Nov. 15,
2000). YCA asserted this argument in various motions throughout the proceedings and
contends the trial court’s rulings eliminated the first prong of an apparent authority claim and
also negated Daniels v. Corrigan, a First District decision indicating that YCA’s compliance
with the Code did not create an actual agency relationship with a cab driver. Daniels v.
Corrigan, 382 Ill. App. 3d 66, 77-80, 886 N.E.2d 1193, 1207-08 (2008). YCA contends the
judgment is particularly unfair when, under the ordinance then in effect, YCA would have
been fined had it painted on the cab’s exterior the words “independently owned and operated
by” and the medallion owner’s name. YCA contends there was no way for it to have modified
its conduct or otherwise minimized its exposure to liability for the actions of a cab driver with
whom it had no relationship and could not control. YCA further argues that because the
Code-mandated “hard card” of the medallion owner’s license was prominently displayed
inside the vehicle stating “Zegus, Inc.” instead of stating “Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc.,”
Jacobs could not have reasonably relied on the driver being YCA’s agent. See York v.
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147, 202, 854 N.E.2d 635, 665-66
(2006) (“if a patient is placed on notice of the independent [contractor] status of the medical
professionals [at the hospital], it would be unreasonable for a patient to assume that these
individuals are employed by the hospital” and the patient cannot argue “there was an
appearance of agency between the independent contractor and the hospital”).
¶ 26 YCA contends the Jacobses’ suit should never have gone to trial and would not have if the
court had properly granted YCA’s motion for summary judgment in 2009 as to the Jacobses’
first amended complaint or YCA’s motion for summary judgment in 2013 as to the Jacobses’
second amended complaint. Circuit Court Judge Thomas Quinn presided over the first motion
for summary judgment and Circuit Court Judge James N. O’Hara presided over the second
motion for summary judgment. The trial and posttrial proceedings were conducted by Circuit
Court Judge Daniel J. Lynch. YCA contends it was error when Judge Lynch granted the
Jacobses’ motion in limine No. 23 in 2015, prohibiting all evidence at trial of the Code’s
extensive regulation of taxicabs and the contractual relationship between YCA and the cab’s
owner and that this ruling prevented the jury from understanding that the cab’s appearance was
mandated by the Code and not YCA. YCA unsuccessfully repeated this argument in its motion
for a directed verdict and its posttrial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in
the alternative, a new trial.
¶ 27 Amicus curiae TLPA is national organization that represents owners and managers of
taxicab, limousine, sedan, airport shuttle, paratransit, and nonemergency medical fleets. TLPA
suggests the verdict cannot stand because of its “ominous” potential impact: it exposes every
Chicago taxi affiliation to apparent agency liability and, if YCA follows through on its
bankruptcy filing, then YCA affiliates might have to switch to some other organization and
bear the expense of repainting their vehicles and the inconvenience of switching out their

-8-
meters, dispatch radios, and credit card processing equipment. TLPA also suggests it was error
to bar evidence of the Code overlaying the relationship between cab affiliations and drivers,
and that it could not be coincidental that within weeks of YCA’s bankruptcy filing, Chicago
revised the Code to permit medallion owners to display on their vehicles “Owned By” or
“Independently Owned By” followed by their full names. TLPA also calls our attention to
Daniels, 382 Ill. App. 3d 66, 886 N.E.2d 1193, and similar precedent.
¶ 28 The Jacobses respond that the Code is silent on the design of the cabs, the logos used, and
the branding that YCA deliberately engaged in when it duplicated the appearance of the classic
Yellow Cab Company’s vehicle. The Jacobses contend YCA apparently wanted to capitalize
on the cab company’s historic good will and reputation in Chicago, while minimizing into
obscurity the fact that the historic fleet of cabs and employed drivers no longer exist and have
been replaced by an affiliation relationship. The Jacobses contend that the perception that
Yellow Cab was still a unified, monolithic brand was the result of YCA’s own calculated and
volitional marketing decision to use the historic Yellow Cab Company’s color scheme and
nearly the same logo, and consequently, YCA was “holding out” the driver as its agent. The
Jacobses also contend the precedent YCA relies upon is not on point. Furthermore, the words
“owner” or “operator” do not appear on the “hard card,” meaning that Jacobs was not put on
notice of the owner or operator’s true identity. The Jacobses conclude there is no merit to
YCA’s argument that it cannot be held liable under the theory of apparent agency.
¶ 29 YCA first argues the merits of its two motions for summary judgment, motion for a
directed verdict, and posttrial motion, followed by the merits of granting the Jacobses’ motion
in limine No. 23, and the proper way to instruct the jury.
¶ 30 The denial of a motion for summary judgment is usually not reviewable after the case has
been tried, but YCA contends its two motions for summary judgment present the exception of
an issue of law which was not presented to the jury. See Valentino v. Hilquist, 337 Ill. App. 3d
461, 467, 785 N.E.2d 891, 897 (2003) (addressing defendants’ arguments that they were not
liable for judgment where statutes immunized governments from tort liability and made
workers’ compensation system the exclusive remedy); Battles v. La Salle National Bank, 240
Ill. App. 3d 550, 558, 608 N.E.2d 438, 443 (1992). We find, however, that the merits of YCA’s
argument for summary judgment as to the (first) amended complaint became moot in 2009
when the Jacobses filed their second amended complaint and that the merits for YCA’s
argument as to the second amended complaint became moot in 2015 when the Jacobses filed
their third amended complaint. When an amendment does not refer to or adopt a prior pleading,
the earlier pleading ceases to be a part of the record for most purposes, being in effect
abandoned and withdrawn. Foxcroft Townhome Owners Ass’n v. Hoffman Rosner Corp., 96
Ill. 2d 150, 154, 449 N.E.2d 125, 126 (1983). Furthermore, the arguments for summary
judgment reappeared during the trial in opposition to the Jacobses’ motion in limine No. 23, in
YCA’s motion for a directed verdict, and in YCA’s posttrial motion, and these three latter
arguments are unquestionably reviewable.
¶ 31 The following legal principles are pertinent to those reviewable rulings. “Apparent
authority in an agent is the authority which the principal knowingly permits the agent to
assume, or the authority which the principal holds the agent out as possessing.” Gilbert v.
Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511, 523, 622 N.E.2d 788, 795 (1993); Restatement
(Third) of Agency § 2.03 (2006). A principal’s manifestation of its agent’s authority is conduct
that is observable by others that expresses meaning, and the relevant state of mind is that of the

-9-
person who observes or otherwise learns of the manifestation. Restatement (Third) of Agency
§ 1.03 cmt. b (2006). Thus, when a purported principal has created the appearance that
someone is his or her agent, and an innocent third party has reasonably relied on the apparent
agency and been harmed as a result, the apparent principal should not be permitted to deny the
agency. O’Banner v. McDonald’s Corp., 173 Ill. 2d 208, 213, 670 N.E.2d 632, 634 (1996).
With respect to that third party, the concept of apparent authority will overcome any
restrictions that the principal may have privately imposed on the agent. Restatement (Third) of
Agency § 2.03 cmt. c (2006). In order to impose liability on the basis of apparent authority, an
Illinois plaintiff need only show “(1) that the principal held the agent out as having authority or
knowingly acquiesced in the agent’s exercise of authority; (2) based on the actions of the
principal and agent, the third person reasonably concluded that an agency relationship existed;
and (3) the third person relied on the agent’s apparent authority to his detriment.”
Oliveira-Brooks v. Re/Max International, Inc., 372 Ill. App. 3d 127, 137, 865 N.E.2d 252, 260
(2007) (citing Gilbert, 156 Ill. 2d at 525, 622 N.E.2d at 795).
¶ 32 “It is not the conduct or words of the apparent agent that creates an apparent agency, but
rather, the words or conduct of the apparent principal.” (Emphasis omitted.) Tierney v.
Community Memorial General Hospital, 268 Ill. App. 3d 1050, 1062, 645 N.E.2d 284, 293
(1994). The manifestations by the apparent principal may be made directly to the third party or
may be made to the community by signs or advertising. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 8
cmt. b (1958). See, e.g., Gizzi v. Texaco, Inc., 437 F.2d 308 (3d Cir. 1971) (discussing the local
display of insignia and slogan and the national advertising done by the Texaco chain of
automobile service stations). Either the principal must intend to cause the third party to believe
that the agent is authorized to act for the principal or the principal should realize that his or her
conduct is likely to create such belief. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 27 cmt. a (1958). “A
principal may not choose to *** clothe[ ] [someone] with the trappings of [agency] and then
determine at a later time whether the consequences of their acts offer an advantage.”
Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.03 cmt. c (2006).
¶ 33 The concept of apparent agency is also described in section 267 of the Restatement
(Second) of Agency as, “One who represents that another is his servant or other agent and
thereby causes a third person justifiably to rely upon the care or skill of such apparent agent is
subject to liability to the third person for harm caused by the lack of care or skill of the one
appearing to be a servant or other agent as if he were such.” Restatement (Second) of Agency
§ 267 (1958). The first illustration in the Reporter’s Notes for section 267 uses facts similar to
the facts of the current case to describe this principle: “P, a taxicab company, purporting to be
the master of the drivers of the cabs, in fact enters into an arrangement with the drivers by
which the drivers operate independently. A driver negligently injures T, a passenger, and also
B, a person upon the street. P is not liable to B. If it is found that T relied upon P as one
furnishing safe drivers, P is subject to liability to T in an action of tort.” Restatement (Second)
of Agency § 267 cmt. a, illus. 1 (1958).
¶ 34 Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co., 292
Ill. App. 3d 242, 251, 684 N.E.2d 1344, 1350 (1997). “Relevant evidence” is evidence that has
“any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of
the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill. App. 3d 530, 535, 794 N.E.2d 875, 879 (2003).
“One of the tests that a trial court may use when evaluating relevance is to ask how it would

- 10 -
view this evidence if it were the trier of fact. Would the proposed evidence assist the trial court
in resolving questions of fact? [Citation.] If not, then the evidence should be excluded.” First
Midwest Trust Co. v. Rogers, 296 Ill. App. 3d 416, 430, 701 N.E.2d 1107, 1116 (1998).
Furthermore, even relevant evidence may have drawbacks that require it to be excluded,
including when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,
waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Ill. R. Evid. 403 (eff. Jan. 1,
2011); Demos v. Ferris-Shell Oil Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 41, 53, 740 N.E.2d 9, 18 (2000) (“even
if the evidence is arguably relevant it may still be excluded if it would confuse the issues or
tend to mislead the jury”). Thus, parties are not permitted to bring in any and all evidence they
might think will help their claim or defense.
¶ 35 The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not
reverse the court’s ruling unless that discretion was clearly abused. Gill v. Foster, 157 Ill. 2d
304, 312-13, 626 N.E.2d 190, 194 (1993). A trial court is also “vested with broad discretion to
grant a motion in limine as part of its inherent power to admit or exclude evidence.” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) DiCosola, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 535, 794 N.E.2d at 879. In
determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, a reviewing court may not
substitute its judgment or even determine whether the trial court exercised its discretion
wisely. DiCosola, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 536, 794 N.E.2d at 879. An abuse of discretion has
occurred when it can be said that no reasonable person would adopt the same view as the trial
court. Schwartz v. Cortelloni, 177 Ill. 2d 166, 176, 685 N.E.2d 871, 876 (1997). The abuse of
discretion standard is “ ‘the most deferential standard of review available with the exception of
no review at all.’ ” People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 387, 701 N.E.2d 1063, 1074 (1998)
(quoting Martha S. Davis, A Basic Guide to Standards of Judicial Review, 33 S.D. L. Rev. 469,
480 (1988)).
¶ 36 The record on appeal contains all of the deposition transcripts that were presented in
opposition to the Jacobses’ motion in limine No. 23, and we briefly summarize that testimony.
Ellis said his connection to the Yellow Cab entities began in 1971 when he was a
commissioned driver operating Yellow Cab Company’s vehicles and being paid a percentage
of the money he “booked” or made per shift. Between 1979 and 1987, Ellis leased a vehicle
from Yellow Cab Company, and between 1987 and 1994 he was one of Yellow Cab
Company’s cashiers. In 1994, Ellis switched over to managing city citations and insurance
subrogation for Yellow Cab Company, 1 and in 2005, when Yellow Cab Company “faded
away” as an entity and “became Yellow Cab Management,” Ellis’s management position
moved over to the new YCA entity. Ellis was 1 of about 10 YCA managers reporting to a
supervisor who reported to YCA’s president, Dan Deleo.
¶ 37 Ellis said YCA collected affiliation fees only and took no control or interest in whether an
affiliated cab was actually used to transport fare paying customers. The medallion owner and
the driver of a cab were responsible for vehicle repairs and towing and could have the work

1
According to Daniels v. Corrigan, 382 Ill. App. 3d 66, 68, 886 N.E.2d 1193, 1198 (2008), in 1997,
Yellow Cab Company formed a network of corporations, and then sold its medallions to YellowOne
and YellowTwo and its “name, colors, and dispatch rights” to Yellow Cab Management. YellowOne
and YellowTwo’s medallions were then affixed to a fleet of cabs owned or leased by Yellow Cab
Management.

- 11 -
done by anyone they chose, and they also controlled the driver’s routes, work hours, and so
forth, and were responsible for gas, tolls, tickets, and fines. The medallion owner did not share
fares or tips with YCA and only had to pay weekly fees. Therefore, the owner could choose to
have the vehicle sit unused or use it for personal purposes. Ellis was asked about Chicago’s cab
ordinance and indicated that the municipality regulated the exterior and interior appearance of
taxicabs and issues citations and fines for unauthorized marking or signage. A cab driver could
not display advertising or decorate the interior of the vehicle, and the only authorized interior
signage was a rate sign, a placard stating rights and duties, and a “hard card.” YCA does not
employ drivers. YCA could not tell drivers to put “independent contractor” or “not an
employee of Yellow Cab” on the exterior of their vehicles, because Chicago has the sole
authority and discretion about what goes on the outside of cabs and does not allow any
markings “except for the ones that they approve.” If a driver failed to post his chauffer’s
license and the hard card, he could be “pulled over by the City of Chicago police,” cited, and
possibly fined. This could also happen if the driver decided to add something unauthorized to
the exterior of the cab, such as advertising, or to the interior of the cab, such as stuffed animals.
¶ 38 When speaking of the relationship between YCA, medallion owners, and drivers, Ellis
explained that not just any medallion owner could affiliate with YCA and not just anyone
could drive a cab affiliated with YCA. Ellis said a medallion owner who wanted to affiliate
with YCA would “come to [YCA] and explain what it is he wants to do and if it’s acceptable,
we [YCA] accept him” and that an individual cab driver would also have to be “acceptable.”
¶ 39 YCA did not own any medallions, they were owned by other corporations and individuals.
Those other corporations included YC-1 which in 2000 owned 900 medallions and in 2005
owned seven medallions. Another corporation was YC-2 which owned 2000 medallions in
2000 and only seven in 2005. The business of these two “YC” corporations was to lease their
medallions. YCA sold no medallions after 2005. Ellis estimated that 2500 medallions affiliated
with YCA. Every one of the medallion owners affiliated with YCA has to “use a [vehicle] that
has the Yellow Cab colors, insignia and logos.” YCA’s color scheme and logos were not
designed by the city. Each affiliation or association could choose how their cabs would appear
and would draw up a plan for approval by the city. The association could decide on the type
and size of lettering. YCA, not the city, proposed the use of the wing logo.
¶ 40 Ellis also specified that the weekly affiliation fee was $179 and that it included mandatory,
minimum insurance coverage of $350,000 per occurrence.
¶ 41 In an “Affiliation Agreement” between YCA and Zegus dated March 30, 2001, YCA
agreed to license the use of its color scheme and its “Insignia,” which are described as the
service marks “Yellow Cab” and “Yellow.” YCA reserved the right to give “final approval”
regarding “shade and/or tone of the Colors on the Taxicab” and the “forms and locations” of
YCA’s insignia on the vehicle. The contract also states that each party is “an independent
contractor and affirms that nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating any
employer-employee, principal-agent, partnership, or joint venture relationship between
[them].” Zegus apparently owned more than one Chicago medallion because seven years after
affiliating with YCA in 2001, Zegus and “Yellow 1” entered into a “Medallion Only Purchase
Agreement” on October 27, 2008, documenting Zegus’s purchase of cab medallion No. 160
for $63,000.
¶ 42 In deposition testimony that was excluded from the trial, Moberg agreed that the
municipality had not chosen the name “Yellow Cab Affiliation,” had not chosen YCA’s wing

- 12 -
logo, and had not chosen YCA’s color scheme. The YCA color was a “unique and special
shade of yellow” chosen through research at the University of Chicago when Yellow Cab
began operating in Chicago in 1915, and it had been in use for many years by YCA and YCA’s
predecessor companies before the accident in 2005. Yellow Cab purported to be the oldest and
largest taxicab company in North America, and according to Moberg, YCA had the largest
fleet in Chicago, Flash had the second, and Checker had the third. Moberg recalled that in the
mid-1990s he verbally asked “the commissioner” to include the actual license owner’s name
on the exterior of Checker Taxi Association affiliated vehicles, and he was uncertain whether
he had also made a formal, written request at the time. He repeated the question in either 2002
or 2003 and was certain that this time was only a verbal request. Moberg agreed that “having a
fleet with a recognized emblem and color scheme helps with marketing to people who ride in
cabs.” Checker Taxi Association and its immediate predecessor Checker Taxi Company did
not own the color scheme and logo they used on Chicago cabs and instead paid a licensing fee
for their use. Moberg was uncertain whether YCA owned its color scheme and logo but said “I
would think not” because YCA “is a relatively new entity.”
¶ 43 Rupal Bapat was not called as a trial witness. At her evidence deposition, Bapat indicated
that in 2011 she was promoted to the position of deputy commissioner of the division of public
vehicle operations of the department of business affairs and consumer protection (BACP) of
the city of Chicago. Between 2011 and 2005, she was an assistant commissioner with the same
department, and between 1998 and 2005, she was a staff attorney with the department. In the
staff attorney position, she prosecuted violations of the Code at issue, section 9-112.
¶ 44 Bapat described taxicab affiliations as being similar to a franchise, in that the affiliation
would be formed and licensed and then taxicab licensees would choose to “belong to it” or not.
She said Chicago’s taxicab industry is a “highly regulated business,” and she characterized the
Code’s control over a taxicab’s appearance as “bumper to bumper.”
¶ 45 Bapat also said, however, that YCA chose its own distinctive color and the municipality
had no input into the design or creation of YCA’s logo. Bapat knew that YCA’s iconic color
and logo predated her tenure with the municipal department. (Bapat came to work for the
department in 1998.) She thought that the color scheme and logo had been used by Yellow Cab
for “many years,” and she referred to the color scheme and logo as being “so old.” She also
assumed that it was “sometime ago,” that “Yellow Cab” had been chosen “as their corporate
legal name.”
¶ 46 Bapat was questioned about the advertising signs and devices permitted by section
9-112-300 of the Code (Chicago Municipal Code § 9-112-300 (amended July 12, 1990)
(“Advertising signs permitted when”)). She indicated the city regulates the specific placement
on the exterior and interior of taxi logos, emblems, phone numbers, and any advertising. The
medallion owner applies online and pays a fee for advertising permits and inspections. Permits
are then approved as long as the advertising does not obscure the vehicle's identifying
information. The advertising equipment must be securely attached so it does not cause a safety
issue. Advertising permits can be issued for taxi top hoods, exterior door panels, and interiors.
Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection Rule 14.04 (“Advertising
guidelines”), which was part of the rules and regulations that BACP adopted in furtherance of
the Code, prohibits profanity or other offensive advertising content.
¶ 47 Bapat confirmed that section 9-112-390 of the Code (Chicago Municipal Code
§ 9-112-390 (amended Nov. 15, 2000)), which dictates the location and size of a taxi’s license

- 13 -
number and driver information, prohibits displays which are not required by the Code or by
state law, or displays which are not permitted by the Code. Bapat also said “[A]nybody can
apply for whatever they want [to display]. I mean, I don't think that there’s a bar on asking for
something.” With respect to interior displays, Bapat said the rules specified the minimum
display of information and indicated anything else needed approval, but there was no
prohibition on seeking or getting approval to display information regarding independent
ownership and operation. Applying to the exterior the words “owned and operated by” and the
medallion owner's name would probably have to be approved by BACP, but Bapat specified,
“I don't have knowledge of anybody ever asking” for approval of that phrase. There was also
nothing in the Code or rules that would prevent someone from asking to use an audible
announcement that a cab is owned and operated by an independent contractor.
¶ 48 Cometas Dilanjian, a co-owner of City Service Taxi Association, was another potential
witness who was not called to testify before the jury. At his deposition, Dilanjian said he
became involved in the taxicab industry as second-generation driver in 1978, subsequently
became a manager, a broker, and a lender within the industry, and had been a taxi affiliation
co-owner for 10 years. Dilanjian recalled having two or three conversations between 1997 and
2000 with the then-commissioner of the department of consumer services, Caroline
Schoenberger. (Bapat testified that the department of consumer services merged into BACP.)
Schoenberger convened informal meetings at least every other month with medallion owners,
affiliation representatives, and drivers. Section 9-112-390 of the Code (Chicago Municipal
Code § 9-112-390 (amended Nov. 15, 2000)) controlled the appearance of cabs and limits the
exterior to the affiliation’s color scheme, trade name, or emblem and telephone number.
Dilanjian, Moberg, and some other operators suggested changing the Code to authorize
placing the names of the owner/operators on the side of taxicabs, as they had seen done with
some suburban taxicabs, but Schoenberger denied the request. When the request was repeated
at a subsequent meeting, she again rejected it.
¶ 49 Before granting the Jacobses’ motion in limine No. 23, the trial court read the proposed
testimony from Ellis, Moberg, Bapat, and Dilanjian, as well as the Code, and the Affiliation
Agreement between YCA and Zegus, but reasoned that evidence regarding the “actual legal
status” that was “generated by ordinance or by contract or agreements or practice” was not
relevant to the case and was collateral to the issue of apparent agency. The pertinent questions
were of appearance and reasonable, detrimental reliance. “So these witness may have
something to say on relevant subjects, but to defend *** by pointing to an ordinance or by
pointing to the City and pointing to the heavy regulations that evidently take place in this
industry would take the Jury on a frolic that’s not relevant.”
¶ 50 Based on the cases cited above, the Code regulating Chicago’s taxicabs, and the proffered
testimony of the four witnesses, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
granting the Jacobses’ motion in limine No. 23. The proposed testimony suffers from several
defects, the most obvious being that it was not relevant to the issues in the case because it did
not negate the fact that the appearance of Ezeagu’s cab was determined by YCA. The
municipal code which YCA attempted to interject into the proceedings did not dictate that
YCA choose a particular color scheme or logo, and the deposition testimony indicated YCA
chose to use the same distinctive color scheme and nearly the same logo that was used
historically by its predecessor, Yellow Cab Company, when the company owned a large fleet
of taxicabs and had an employer-employee relationship with its cab drivers. YCA has argued

- 14 -
that cab No. 160’s appearance was not voluntary and was instead mandated by the local
ordinance. But in fact, the ordinance never required YCA to use its predecessor’s color scheme
and its trade name or emblem.
¶ 51 Section 9-112-010(a) of the version of the ordinance that was in effect at the time stated:
“ ‘Affiliation’ means an association of public passenger vehicle license holders
organized and incorporated for the purpose of providing its members with a Chicago
business address, telephone number registered to the affiliation, color scheme where
applicable, a trade name or emblem where applicable, a two-way radio dispatch
system, insurance and the designation of an authorized registered agent. Members of an
affiliation shall be known as ‘affiliates.’ ” Chicago Municipal Code § 9-112-010(a)
(amended Nov. 15, 2000).
¶ 52 Section 9-112-080(b)(7) regarding the “Qualifications” of a public passenger vehicle
license holder required most taxis to affiliate with a licensed affiliation:
“7. Beginning January 1, 1999, any applicant for issuance or renewal of a taxicab
license shall submit proof that he is affiliated with an affiliation licensed by the city,
except that a licensee who certifies at the time of application that he/she owns or
controls no more than one taxicab license and that no person other than the licensee, the
licensee's spouse or a natural or legally adopted child of the licensee shall operate the
taxicab throughout the entire license period need not be affiliated.” Chicago Municipal
Code § 9-112-080(b)(7) (amended Nov. 15, 2000).
¶ 53 In addition, section 9-112-390 stated at the time:
“Every taxicab shall have the public passenger vehicle license number and the
cabman's name and telephone number painted [on the rear doors, or if an advertising
permit has been issued for the rear doors, then on the rear panels of the vehicle]. If the
cabman is affiliated or identified with any affiliation, *** the affiliation’s color
scheme, trade name or emblem and telephone number shall be [painted on the rear
doors or rear panels] and, without being limited thereto, any of these indicia of
affiliation shall be sufficient to establish the responsibility of the affiliation in the
operation of the taxicab. All names and numbers shall be painted in plain Gothic letters
and figures of one-half-inch [stroke] and at least four inches in height. The public
vehicle license number assigned to any taxicab shall be assigned to the same vehicle or
to any vehicle substituted therefor by the licensee. The commissioner may also
provide, pursuant to rule, that other information of interest to the public, including, but
not limited to, the licensee’s or affiliation's website or email address and/or the current
taximeter rates of fare be permanently and prominently affixed to the outside of the
vehicle. No other name, number, emblem, or advertisement of any kind except signs
required by this chapter [9-112 of the Municipal Code which governs Public Passenger
Vehicles], official license emblems or metal plate shall be painted or carried so as to be
visible on the outside of any taxicab unless otherwise required by state law.” Chicago
Municipal Code § 9-112-390 (amended Nov. 15, 2000).
¶ 54 Thus, although the ordinance spoke of an affiliation’s color scheme, its trade name or
emblem, and its telephone number, none of the language dictated or narrowed YCA’s
identifying characteristics. It was YCA that decided that YCA-affiliated cabs would be
covered in the same distinctive shade of yellow which had covered Yellow Cab’s ubiquitous
fleet when it owned the vehicles and employed the drivers. And it was YCA that wanted to use

- 15 -
essentially the same yellow wing logo with the words “Yellow” and “Cab” still featured most
prominently and the small phrase “Affiliation, Inc.” tucked nearly imperceptibly into the
border of the historical logo, in very small lettering:

¶ 55 YCA cites section 9-112-390 for the proposition that its appearance was based on legally
mandated conduct and that it was error to allow the Jacobses to proceed on and recover on a
theory that YCA made voluntary choices which created the appearance of agency with Ezeagu.
No part of section 9-112-390 limited YCA’s choice of identifying characteristics. No Code
section or corresponding BACP rule specified a particular color or even narrowed YCA’s
choice of color(s). No regulation required affiliations to cover the entire exterior of cabs in the
affiliation’s identifying color(s) as Yellow Cab Company historically covered its vehicles. The
all-over coloring of cab No. 160 contrasts with the small and strategic placement of color on
the white vehicles that other cab affiliations chose (as depicted in the 20 photos introduced
during Moberg’s deposition and tendered in opposition to motion in limine No. 23). Also, no
Chicago ordinance or rule mandated that YCA adopt a particular logo.
¶ 56 YCA’s choice of identifying characteristics is material because that choice is what created
the appearance that Ezeagu was YCA’s agent. YCA could have chosen nearly any color
scheme and logo. It could have used a color scheme and logo that was derivative of, yet
sufficiently different from, Yellow Cab’s to announce YCA’s presence in Chicago. However,
YCA chose not to modernize the vehicle appearance to reflect the modern relationship that
YCA has with cab owners and drivers. YCA’s liability to the Jacobses is not based on its
involuntary compliance with the Code, as it now argues, but on its affirmative and voluntary
choice, independent of any legal requirement, of a certain color scheme and logo. Adopting the
well-known and recognizable Yellow Cab appearance was not required by the municipality.
Rather, the prospective customer’s perception that Yellow Cab Company was still a unified,
monolithic brand was the result of YCA’s own volitional marketing and design decisions. We
are unpersuaded by YCA’s assertion that there was “simply no way for [it] to modify its
conduct or otherwise limit its exposure.” It is clear to this court that by continuing to present
nearly the same appearance over the years, YCA knew that prospective customers, including
Jacobs, would believe YCA owned and/or controlled the distinctive yellow-colored cabs that
were operating in Chicago.
¶ 57 YCA also wanted to present Moberg, Dilanjian, and Bapat’s testimony to show that the
city prevented cab owners and drivers from informing the public of their independence from
YCA. This argument is about marking the cab with the medallion owner’s name and the phrase
“Independently Owned and Operated” and is based on the concluding sentence in section
9-112-390, quoted above, which prohibits additional displays of information which are not
required by the ordinance, approved by BACP, or required by other law. Moberg and Dilanjian
were presidents of two other taxicab affiliations, not YCA, and Bapat was a long-term

- 16 -
employee of Chicago’s BACP and had been promoted in 2011 to deputy commissioner.
Moberg said that he made “several” requests to “the commissioner” to include the actual
license owner’s name on the exterior of Checker affiliated vehicles. Dilanjian was more
specific and said:
“Myself and some of the other operators, John [Moberg], being one of them, had
brought that up [during an informal meeting with then-Commissioner Schoenberg],
you know. We had seen that on suburban taxis, and we thought it would be a good idea
to also have those on our affiliate taxis, whereby you’re identifying the owner of the
actual medallion.
And just because [cabs appear to be owned and operated by] *** City Service [Taxi
Association], or any other affiliation, the public is mistaken that they belong to us,
which is not the case.”
¶ 58 Dilanjian also said that affiliation owners were interested in painting the medallion
owner’s name on the exterior of each cab because, “from our perspective, you know, it would
identify that it was an individual *** besides City Service, that owned the vehicle.”
¶ 59 We point out that Moberg and Dilanjian’s testimony indicates that even these lay
individuals in Chicago’s cab industry were aware that consumers did not understand that
Chicago’s historical cab companies had shifted away from direct ownership and employment
to the affiliation relationship with Chicago’s medallion owners and drivers. Apart from its
hearsay nature, this proposed testimony suffers from other defects which justified barring it
from the trial. The first infirmity is that none of the testimony was about YCA. Neither Moberg
nor Dilanjian could speak for YCA because they were part of the management teams of other
cab affiliations, not this defendant affiliation, and neither could competently testify whether
YCA ever considered using cab No. 160’s exterior to give notice that the vehicle and
medallion were under independent ownership and operation. The fact that other cab affiliations
may have wanted to clear up the public’s misperception of the true legal relationship between
their affiliations and their associated medallion owners and drivers is not an indication that
YCA ever wanted to do the same. Furthermore, the Code did not provide for oral requests and
neither Moberg nor Dilanjian could produce a record of a written request. Bapat’s testimony
was also nonspecific to YCA and was primarily “about her own experience enforcing the Code
and regulations.” Thus, the proposed testimony regarding the Code would have taken the
jury’s attention far from the relevant question of whether YCA’s voluntary conduct created the
appearance that this cab driver was its agent. The trial court aptly characterized the proposed
evidence as a “frolic” off into territory that was not a defense to the Jacobses’ allegations
against YCA. The statements were not connected to YCA, and they were properly barred as
irrelevant. Clemons, 292 Ill. App. 3d at 251, 684 N.E.2d at 1350 (irrelevant testimony is not
admissible). Furthermore, even if the ordinance was in any way relevant, its introduction into
the trial would have confused the issues and misled the jury into believing that YCA’s
selection of its yellow color scheme and wing logo was the result of a mandatory municipal
ordinance, when in fact, there never was such a requirement. Demos, 317 Ill. App. 3d at 53,
740 N.E.2d at 18 (“even if the evidence is arguably relevant it may still be excluded if it would
confuse the issues or tend to mislead the jury”).
¶ 60 An additional problem with permitting the introduction of Moberg and Dilanjian’s
testimony at trial is that it was remote in time from Jacobs’s decision to catch a cab on that
August evening in 2005. Moberg purportedly asked “the commissioner” once in the 1990s and

- 17 -
“maybe” again in “2002, 2003” to include the actual license owner’s name on the exterior of
affiliated vehicles, and Dilanjian was only able to narrow down the time frame of the industry
meetings with then-commissioner Schoenberger to perhaps two or three conversations
somewhere between 1997 and 2000. Thus, their proposed testimony concerned the state of the
Code at least several years before the accident, making it too stale and remote in time to have
any evidentiary value. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. Grand Mandarin Restaurant,
Inc., 189 Ill. App. 3d 355, 363, 544 N.E.2d 1145, 1150 (1989) (rejecting 5-year-old purchase
price and 10-year-old written and oral lease agreements as being too remote in time to have
evidentiary value in real estate condemnation value dispute); Healy v. Bearco Management,
Inc., 216 Ill. App. 3d 945, 958, 576 N.E.2d 1195, 1205 (1991) (offer of proof that witness
refused to give plaintiff money ten years earlier and thus harbored ill feelings towards plaintiff
would have been too remote in time to aid the jury in weighing the witness’s testimony);
Magna Bank of McLean County v. Ogilvie, 235 Ill. App. 3d 318, 327, 601 N.E.2d 1091, 1097
(1992) (where railroad accident expert witness testified train crew should have blown whistle
immediately, proposed evidence that he acted inconsistently 10 years earlier when he was the
engineer on a train that rear-ended a second train was too remote in time).
¶ 61 Bapat, an attorney with the agency since 1998, could not corroborate Moberg or
Dilanjian’s testimony and undermined it when she said she was unaware the city had received
an application to display ownership on the exterior of a Chicago cab. In addition, she conceded
that the Code did not mandate any particular color, name, or logo.
¶ 62 Ultimately, none of the excluded testimony contradicts the fact that YCA voluntarily
determined the appearance of the vehicle Ezeagu was driving. We find that the trial court did
not err in rejecting the testimony and disallowing a mini-trial on the irrelevant municipal
taxicab regulations.
¶ 63 YCA’s offer of proof indicates that it also proposed to describe or provide the jury with the
YCA-Zegus affiliation contract, taxicab regulations that were adopted by seven Illinois
communities near Chicago (Buffalo Grove, Des Plaines, Elgin, Evanston, Morton Grove,
Palatine, and Skokie), and the photographs of suburban cab logos. YCA does not argue these
additional exhibits on appeal and has waived our consideration of them. Doolin v. K-S
Telegage Co., 75 Ill. App. 3d 25, 28, 393 N.E.2d 556, 559 (1979) (an appellant who fails to
argue an issue waives it); Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2008) (supreme court rule
indicating that points not argued on appeal are waived). In any event, not one piece of these
additional materials contradicted the fact that the appearance of Ezeagu’s cab was determined
by YCA, in that YCA chose to use Yellow Cab’s distinctive name, color scheme, and logo.
¶ 64 YCA’s reliance on Daniels is misplaced because that plaintiff relied on an entirely
different legal premise, actual agency, and argued that the extent of the principal’s actual
control over the driver and vehicle, which was dictated in part by the Code, created an actual
principal-agent relationship. Daniels, 382 Ill. App. 3d 66, 886 N.E.2d 1193. Actual agency
consists of a principal/agent, master/servant, or employer/employee relationship and the
principal’s control or right to control the conduct of the agent, servant, or employee. See
Oliveira-Brooks, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 134, 865 N.E.2d at 258. Apparent agency liability occurs
when a purported principal has created the appearance that someone is his or her agent, and an
innocent third party has reasonably relied on the appearance to his or her detriment. O’Banner,
173 Ill. 2d at 213, 670 N.E.2d at 634. The Daniels court did not address the concept at issue
here, apparent agency, and the Jacobses’ contention that YCA’s voluntary marketing decision

- 18 -
to use a historic, recognized color scheme and logo created the reasonable impression that a
Yellow Cab was being driven by a Yellow Cab driver under Yellow Cab’s authority and
control. In other words, the plaintiff in Daniels relied on the Code and the real relationship
between the affiliation and the driver, while the Jacobses did not. The Code and the principles
of actual agency are red herrings that were introduced in these proceedings by the defendants.
¶ 65 YCA’s reliance on Knapp and Oliveira-Brooks is similarly misplaced, as the first case is
strictly an actual agency case, and the second case is primarily an actual agency case that
touches only briefly on the apparent agency concept and indicates the plaintiff failed to plead
two of the three elements of this type of claim. Knapp v. Hill, 276 Ill. App. 3d 376, 657 N.E.2d
1068 (1995); Oliveira-Brooks, 372 Ill. App. 3d 127, 865 N.E.2d 252. In addition, Sebago v.
Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 28 N.E.2d 1139 (Mass. 2015), cited by amicus curiae TLPA, is a
variation on Daniels, in which four Boston cab drivers argued that compliance with municipal
taxicab regulations meant that instead of being independent contractors, they had become
actual employees entitled to minimum wages, overtime pay, and other benefits. Not one of
these cases is on point, and the courts’ conclusions cannot be applied to the current litigation.
As in the trial court, YCA continues to rely on the concept of actual agency, when the only
agency principle relevant in this case is the concept of apparent agency.
¶ 66 Furthermore, we reject YCA’s contention that, as a matter of law, the taxicab medallion
owner’s license (hard card) posted inside the vehicle put Jacobs on notice that the cab was not
owned by YCA and thus he could not have reasonably relied on the cab driver being an
apparent agent of YCA. See Oliveira-Brooks, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 137, 865 N.E.2d at 260
(indicating the elements of apparent agency are that the principal held the agent out, the third
person reasonably concluded that an agency relationship existed, and the third person relied on
the agent’s apparent authority to his detriment).
¶ 67 The significance of the hard card is not an issue which could or should have been resolved
by the trial court as a matter of law. The decision YCA primarily relies upon, York, involved a
jury trial. York, 222 Ill. 2d at 202, 854 N.E.2d at 665-66 (“if a patient is placed on notice of the
independent [contractor] status of the medical professionals [at the hospital], it would be
unreasonable for a patient to assume that these individuals are employed by the hospital” and
the patient cannot argue “there was an appearance of agency between the independent
contractor and the hospital”). Here, too, it was for the jury to decide whether the content of the
card and the manner in which it was displayed gave sufficient notice to a reasonable person in
Jacobs’s position. See Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 17, 36, 719
N.E.2d 756, 767 (1999). The existence of the hard card alone does not establish that Jacobs
was notified that Ezeagu was not YCA’s agent.
¶ 68 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the
plaintiffs’ motion in limine No. 23 to bar evidence that was irrelevant and would not have
made a difference in the jury’s determination as to whether YCA was the apparent principal of
the cab driver. It was not an abuse of discretion to bar evidence YCA proffered to suggest that
the ordinance mandated the selection of YCA’s color scheme, name, and logo on the side of
Ezeagu’s cab. It was not, as YCA argues, an involuntary decision on YCA’s part to choose the
iconic name, color, and logo of the once largest cab company in Chicago.
¶ 69 In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to let YCA introduce
evidence that the ordinance would not permit an affiliation to place anything other than the
specific medallion number and the affiliation’s logo and phone number on the exterior of the

- 19 -
cab. Even though one could argue that the ordinance in effect at the time generally did not
allow information such as “independently owned and operated [by another]” to be placed
exterior of the cab, (1) there was other proffered testimony indicating that an application could
have been made to add that information, and (2) the only witness who provided any competent
evidence in this regard was Bapat, who averred that she did not recall the department ever
receiving and rejecting such an application. As already discussed above, there was no
particular relevance about some other cab affiliation’s request, made many years before this
accident, that the other affiliation be permitted to post ownership information on the side of its
affiliated vehicles. Moberg and Dilanjian’s proposed testimony was obviously remote,
uncertain, and speculative vis-à-vis YCA. Furthermore, the trial court could reasonably
conclude that the testimony’s limited relevance would mislead and confuse the jury on the
issue of whether YCA held out Ezeagu as its agent. Since YCA never requested that the city
allow YCA to place ownership information on YCA-affiliated cabs, YCA has not
demonstrated how the evidence would have impacted the jury’s decision about YCA or how
the jury could have used the purely speculative information to reach its verdict about YCA.
Furthermore, as the appellant, YCA would need to show not only that the proposed evidence
was improperly excluded but also that the exclusion resulted in serious prejudice which
affected the outcome of the trial. Jones v. DHR Cambridge Homes, Inc., 381 Ill. App. 3d 18,
33, 885 N.E.2d 330, 344 (2008) (a reviewing court will grant reversal based on evidentiary
rulings only when the error was substantially prejudicial and affected the outcome of the trial);
Bachman v. General Motors Corp., 332 Ill. App. 3d 760, 785, 776 N.E.2d 262, 285 (2002)
(burden is on the party seeking reversal to establish that an evidentiary ruling was erroneous,
substantially prejudicial, and affected the outcome of the trial). YCA has not argued how this
independent ownership evidence would have precluded an apparent agency finding in this
case. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion on this ground. Schwartz, 177 Ill. 2d at 176,
685 N.E.2d at 1074 (indicating a trial court abuses its discretion when no reasonable person
would reach the same decision).
¶ 70 The dissent correctly states that Chicago’s taxicab industry is a highly regulated field.
However, the dissent concedes, as it must, that the Code did not require YCA to choose the
distinctive and historical yellow color, Yellow Cab name, and wing logo which manifested an
agency relationship between YCA and Ezeagu. Again, those choices were YCA’s voluntary
choices and voluntary manifestations of its agency relationship with the cab driver. If the
regulations had in any way required YCA to use its predecessor’s color scheme on the 1,500 or
2,500 cabs that affiliated with YCA (both numbers appear in the record), we would agree that
the jury should have heard this evidence and then been asked to decide whether YCA was
involuntarily complying with the Code or voluntarily holding out Ezeagu. Moreover, if there
was any witness testimony to that effect, we would agree that the jury should have heard it. If
the Code required YCA to select a name such as “Yellow Cab” and place it in large, prominent
lettering on its affiliated vehicles, then the jury should have been asked to consider whether
YCA had any choice but to display the name of a former giant employer of Chicago taxicab
drivers. No Code section and no proposed witness testimony, however, suggested that YCA
should select the name it selected. Similarly, if the Code required YCA to nearlyreplicate the
former giant’s logo, then the jury should have decided whether the ordinance mandated the
choice or YCA made that choice voluntarily. However, there was no such provision in the
Code and no possible witness testimony to that effect. We cannot fault the trial court for

- 20 -
properly excluding YCA from portraying YCA’s voluntary acts as involuntary, without any
legal or evidentiary support.
¶ 71 Although the dissent accurately describes many parts of the ordinance, no part of the
“bumper to bumper” regulations makes it more probable that YCA involuntarily selected its
particular color scheme, name, and logo. It is impossible to conclude that requiring all cabs to
have dome lights, use a minimum size of Gothic font lettering, or transport riders in
underserved neighborhoods made it more probable that YCA’s selection of its full-cab color
scheme, name, and logo were involuntary acts. Requirements about vehicle appearance, such
as certain cab lighting and the font size of signage, had no bearing on whether YCA manifested
to the public that YCA was Ezeagu’s principal. In fact, YCA itself does not argue on appeal
that any specific Code section should have been presented to the jury. Furthermore, Bapat, one
of YCA’s own proposed witnesses in opposition to the motion in limine, emphatically said (1)
“I know that the color yellow that Yellow Cab uses is the color that they’ve chosen,” (2) YCA
chose its corporate name, and (3) YCA’s insignia was the same insignia she had seen on
taxicabs throughout her career dating to 1998, which was prior to YCA’s formation.
Regulations about vehicle appearance helped make cabs uniform and clearly identifiable as
cabs to Chicago consumers. YCA knew that once YCA made its choices, the Code would
require affiliated medallion owners to consistently use those visible manifestations of agency.
The ordinance did not control YCA’s decisions to portray affiliated vehicles in a certain way to
consumers. Furthermore, it is unpersuasive to suggest that the city’s decision to break up the
ownership of medallions from a few companies to many somehow controlled YCA’s choice of
how its affiliated cabs would appear to the public.
¶ 72 In addition, the dissent’s suggestion that YCA is in business to help the city regulate
Chicago taxicabs is misplaced. The record reveals that YCA collects roughly $200 per week
per affiliated cab, whether the cab is driven or not, which amounts to millions of dollars per
year. Although some of that steady stream of income is used to provide the affiliated medallion
owners with liability insurance coverage and other services such as complimentary car washes,
it is indisputable that YCA is a for-profit business. YCA is not a charity serving the Chicago
community, nor has it been required to remain in the taxicab industry.
¶ 73 The dissent also finds it significant that the ordinance requires affiliations and affiliates
(YCA and medallion owners) to enter into written contracts. We have already concluded that
YCA did not sufficiently explain in its appellate brief how and in what way the jury should
have been informed about the agreement. YCA has not argued on appeal that any of the
agreement’s provisions were crucial to its defense or that YCA was prejudiced by the
agreement’s absence from the proceedings. We found the incomplete argument was waived.
The dissent, nevertheless, deems the argument to have been important.
¶ 74 The dissent also highlights the fact that as the trial began, the plaintiffs dismissed the
medallion owner (the driver’s brother) as a defendant, as was the plaintiffs’ right. This fact has
no bearing on the evidentiary rulings on appeal.
¶ 75 We have also separately examined whether the trial court should have allowed evidence
that the ordinance prohibited YCA from telling the public that cab medallion No. 160 was
independently owned and being operated by another person or entity. Although Bapat said at
her deposition that the ordinance strictly regulated what had to be displayed on the interior and
exterior of the cab, she also said nothing prohibited a request to display additional information
on the vehicle and that she was unaware of anyone ever presenting such a request or having it

- 21 -
rejected. YCA has never argued that it made such a request. Instead, YCA proposed to put on
testimony that some other cab company or companies, wholly unrelated to YCA, and many
years before the accident at issue, had orally made a request during a meeting with the
then-Commissioner, and that she denied it. As we noted above, there was no evidence or
testimony to corroborate this proposed testimony. Furthermore, the Code does not provide for
oral requests. And, even assuming that the proposed testimony was accurate, no one testified
that YCA was aware that such a conversation took place. Consequently, we cannot conclude
from YCA’s thin offer of proof that the trial court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion.
¶ 76 Finally, the dissent is persuaded by YCA’s inaccurate contention that YCA “had no
authority under the Code to reject an affiliate” such as corporate medallion owner Zegus and is
nevertheless being held responsible for the driver’s accident. The dissent cites this as another
instance of YCA’s involuntary conduct mandated by the Code. YCA’s only support for this
contention, however, is section 9-112-080(b)(7) of the Code, which actually required Zegus to
join an affiliation, because, at the time, Zegus owned more than one cab medallion and was
leasing cab No. 160 to someone who was not an immediate family member of Matthew
Ezeagu. Section 9-112-80(b)(7) imposed this requirement on medallion owners, but it did not
impose any obligation on affiliations. Thus, YCA’s reliance on the Code is incorrect.
Furthermore, YCA’s own witness, Ellis, who worked for Yellow Cab and YCA for many
years, specified that his employer scrutinized both the medallion owner and driver before
accepting a relationship with them. The inescapable conclusion from the record is that YCA
did reject potential affiliates.
¶ 77 Unlike the dissent, we conclude YCA’s manifestations of agency resulted from YCA’s
voluntary actions which were not forced upon it by the Code. We also determine that in this
case, the apparent principal, YCA, did voluntarily control the appearance of agency.
¶ 78 The Code and Daniels are also YCA’s basis for arguing that it was entitled to judgment as
a matter of law and that the trial court erred by denying YCA’s motion for a directed verdict
and posttrial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. These two decisions are
reviewed de novo. Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 121901-B, ¶ 36, 29 N.E.3d
1097 (motions for directed verdict are reviewed de novo); Kehoe v. Wildman, Harrold, Allen &
Dixon, 387 Ill. App. 3d 454, 462, 899 N.E.2d 1177, 1184 (2008) (motions for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict are reviewed de novo).
¶ 79 However, the determination of apparent agency is generally not a question of law.
Oliveira-Brooks, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 134, 865 N.E.2d at 258. Although the existence of an
agency relationship can become a question of law when the “the facts regarding the
relationship are undisputed or no liability exists as a matter of law” (Oliveira-Brooks, 372 Ill.
App. 3d at 134, 865 N.E.2d at 258), that is not the case here. A directed verdict is appropriate
only in those cases where all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the
opponent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict could ever stand.
Williams, 2015 IL App (1st) 121901-B, ¶ 36, 29 N.E.3d 1097. Similarly, a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict should not be entered “unless the evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary
verdict based on that evidence could ever stand.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kehoe,
387 Ill. App. 3d at 462, 899 N.E.2d at 1184.
¶ 80 Our analysis above indicates YCA was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As we
have already pointed out, adopting the recognizable look of the historical yellow taxicab was

- 22 -
not in any way required by the municipal ordinance. Furthermore, Daniels does not suggest
otherwise. Daniels, 382 Ill. App. 3d 66, 886 N.E.2d 1193. YCA’s use of the historical color
scheme and selection of the emblem, taken with the history of Yellow Cab Company in
Chicago, were volitional manifestations which would be likely to play upon the expectations
of this city’s consumers and lead Jacobs to believe that the yellow cab he chose to ride in was a
YCA vehicle, operated by a YCA driver, under YCA’s authority and control. In light of the
evidence, the jury correctly could and did conclude that YCA held out Ezeagu as its driver and
that Jacobs reasonably relied on that holding out. Therefore, YCA was not entitled to judgment
as a matter of law, either when it presented its motion for a directed verdict or its posttrial
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
¶ 81 Having considered YCA’s many contentions regarding the evidence and law pertinent to
the Jacobses’ apparent agency claims, we affirm the trial court’s rejection of the Chicago
ordinance and other irrelevant information which YCA attempted to use to undermine the
plaintiffs’ case. This conclusion resolves YCA’s main argument.
¶ 82 YCA’s next argument concerns the jury instructions as to apparent agency. YCA argues
the trial court ignored the drafting committee’s notes stating that Illinois Pattern Jury
Instructions, Civil, No. 105.10 (2011) (hereinafter, IPI Civil (2011) No. 105.10) should not be
used in cases other than medical negligence without modification, and that the instruction was
not sufficiently revised to suit the facts of this case. The trial court changed the instruction to
reflect that this case involved a taxicab affiliation, not a hospital, and the court also broke up
the paragraphs to reflect the three elements of apparent agency. Instruction No. 105.10, as
modified by the trial court and given to the jury, reads:
“In order for an apparent agency relationship to have existed, Marc Jacobs must
prove the following:
First, that Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc. held itself out as a provider of taxicab
services;
Second, that Marc Jacobs neither knew nor should have known that Cornelius
Ezeagu was not an employee of Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc.; and
Third, that Marc Jacobs did not choose Cornelius Ezeagu but relied on Yellow Cab
Affiliation, Inc. to provide taxicab services.”
YCA contends the modified instruction, however, did not require the Jacobses to prove the
core elements of apparent agency, a nonpattern instruction would have been appropriate, and
YCA must have a new trial.
¶ 83 The Jacobses respond that the instruction was proper because the pattern instructions
contemplate that IPI Civil (2011) No. 105.10 will be used with modification in nonmedical
negligence cases. Also, the pattern instruction for general apparent agency, IPI Civil (2011)
No. 50.16, expressly indicates that the drafting committee “prepared instructions dealing with
these issues which can be found at 105.10 and 105.11.” IPI Civil (2011) No. 50.16, Comment.
The Jacobses further assert that substantial modifications were made to IPI Civil (2011) No.
105.10 at the defendants’ request and that the instruction did require the Jacobses to prove the
three elements of their claims. Recognizing that the particular pattern instruction was first
drafted for use in medical negligence cases, the trial court modified the language so that it
pertained to the taxicab industry instead of the medical industry. At the court’s jury instruction
conference with counsel, the court granted YCA’s request that the three elements in the

- 23 -
instruction be broken out into three paragraphs, instead of the two in the standard pattern
instruction, so that the jury would be aware that in order to find an apparent agency
relationship, it would need to find that Jacobs neither knew nor should have known that Ezeagu
was not YCA’s agent. Furthermore, at YCA’s request, the jury was given a special
interrogatory as to each of the three elements, and the jury answered the questions consistently
with the general verdict, which indicates that the jury clearly understood the instructions. The
Jacobses also contend that YCA’s posttrial motion was insufficient to preserve the current
argument.
¶ 84 The trial court exercises its discretion to determine if a proposed jury instruction is
applicable, supported by evidence in the record, and an accurate statement of the law. Luye v.
Schopper, 348 Ill. App. 3d 767, 773, 809 N.E.2d 156, 161 (2004). Once a trial court determines
an instruction is to be given, then Illinois Supreme Court Rule 239(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 1999) creates
a presumption that one of the pattern instructions will be used. Luye, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 773,
809 N.E.2d at 161. The trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing a nonpattern
instruction if an appropriate pattern instruction exists. Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional
Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260, 285, 775 N.E.2d 964, 979 (2002). The trial court may
reject a pattern instruction that does not correctly state principles of law applicable to the
submitted evidence. Ill. S. Ct. R. 239(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 1999). On review, we may look to whether
the challenged instruction “ ‘fairly, fully, and comprehensively apprised the jury of the
relevant legal principles.’ ” Luye, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 809 N.E.2d at 161 (quoting Schultz,
201 Ill. 2d at 273-74, 775 N.E.2d at 973).
¶ 85 However, in order to preserve for review a question concerning jury instructions, the
appellant must have filed a sufficiently specific posttrial motion. Brown v. Decatur Memorial
Hospital, 83 Ill. 2d 344, 415 N.E.2d 337 (1980). Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, a
posttrial motion “must contain the points relied upon, particularly specifying the grounds in
support thereof, and must state the relief desired.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1202(b) (West 2014).
Subsequently, pursuant to the rules governing appeals, “A party may not urge as error on
review of the ruling on the party’s post-trial motion any point, ground, or relief not specified in
the motion.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 366(b)(2)(iii) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). Specificity is required in a posttrial
motion for three reasons: (1) to allow the trial judge, who is most familiar with the trial
proceedings, to review his or her decisions without the pressure of an ongoing trial and grant a
new trial if the challenged decisions were incorrect, (2) to allow a reviewing court to determine
from the record whether the trial judge was adequately afforded an opportunity to reassess the
rulings, and (3) to prevent a party from stating mere general objections in the trial court and
subsequently raise on appeal specific arguments which the trial judge was never given the
opportunity to consider. Brown, 83 Ill. 2d at 349-50, 415 N.E.2d at 339.
¶ 86 Typically, when a posttrial motion is presented, the jury instruction conference has not yet
been transcribed and, rather than expecting the trial judge to recall the details of the
conference, the motion must convey enough detail to give the judge the ability to make an
informed decision about his or her earlier rulings. Brown, 83 Ill. 2d at 350-51, 415 N.E.2d at
340. Accordingly, in Brown, the court deemed the following posttrial argument to be clearly
inadequate under both the statute and rule quoted above: “ ‘The Court refused to give
Plaintiff’s tendered instructions 9, 11, and 16’ ” and “ ‘The court gave, over objection of the
Plaintiff, Defendant’s tendered instructions 2, 3, and 4.’ ” Brown, 83 Ill. 2d at 349, 415 N.E.2d
at 340.

- 24 -
¶ 87 In our opinion, YCA’s posttrial motion was very similar to the posttrial motion that was
rejected in Brown (Brown, 83 Ill. 2d 344, 415 N.E.2d 337), and it defied the specificity
requirements of the statute and rule quoted above. YCA’s posttrial motion stated only the
following:
“The Defendant tendered numerous alternative instructions on the subject of apparent
agency, all of which were rejected by the Court, even though they nearly identically
tracked the language of the nonmedical malpractice cases on apparent agency cited by
Defendants in their Apparent Agency Brief and related arguments thereon.
The Court disallowed each and every jury instruction about apparent agency,
including the definition of apparent agency from Plooy2 [sic] with the elements of
acquiescence or knowledge by the principal. The Court rejected all of Defendant’s
instructions that sought to explain or define holding out or reliance. All of the foregoing
constitutes error and justifies a new trial.”
¶ 88 YCA disagrees with the Jacobses’ remark that the posttrial motion was “hastily” filed
before it was complete. The procedural rules give a party 30 days after the entry of a judgment
or the discharge of a jury to file a posttrial motion, and the trial court is authorized to extend
this deadline. 735 ILCS 5/2-1202(c) (West 2014). However, a posttrial motion filed in apt time
stays enforcement of the judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1202(d) (West 2014). YCA acknowledges
filing its posttrial motion almost immediately after the jury’s verdict, but contends the motion
was adequate and that the Jacobses said at the time that the motion presented arguments which
the trial court could rule on immediately without waiting for the parties to prepare briefs.
¶ 89 Regardless of the Jacobses’ willingness to proceed without further argument or briefing, it
was incumbent on YCA, as the moving party, to prepare a written motion which was
sufficiently detailed to preserve YCA’s arguments for review. We find that YCA did not make
a record adequate to preserve the issue of jury instructions for our review, which is reason for
us to affirm the trial court’s ruling. Brown, 83 Ill. 2d at 352, 415 N.E.2d at 341.
¶ 90 Even if we deemed the posttrial motion sufficient, in our opinion, the instruction that was
given accurately stated the law and fully apprised the jury of the legal principles of apparent
agency relevant in this case. We are mindful that this instruction was developed for medical
negligence cases, however, as the Jacobses pointed out, it is clear from the drafting
committee’s notes that it contemplated that the instruction would be used in other types of
cases and modified accordingly. The trial court modified the pattern instruction to reflect the
nature of the case and made further changes that YCA proposed. YCA contends that some
other instructions were appropriate, but YCA has not established that the modified instruction
was legally deficient. Therefore, even on the merits, we are not persuaded that the trial court
abused its discretion by instructing the jury as it did.
¶ 91 We now turn to the last element of an apparent agency claim, which is that the third party
relied to his detriment on the agent’s apparent authority. Oliveira-Brooks, 372 Ill. App. 3d at
137, 865 N.E.2d at 260; O’Banner, 173 Ill. 2d at 213, 670 N.E.2d at 635 (“In order to recover
on an apparent agency theory, O’Banner would have to show that he actually did rely on the
apparent agency in going to the [McDonald’s] restaurant where he was allegedly injured.”).
YCA now contends the Jacobses’ claim against YCA must fail as a matter of law because there
was no evidence as to why Jacobs chose cab No. 160 on the night of the accident. The Jacobses
2
This is apparently a reference to Plooy v. Paryani, 275 Ill. App. 3d 1074, 657 N.E.2d 12 (1995).

- 25 -
respond that his reliance was established through testimony indicating he had a habit of taking
YCA cabs because he believed they were cleaner and safer than other taxicabs.
¶ 92 Evidence of reliance on other occasions is not sufficient to prove reliance on the occasion
at issue. Plooy v. Paryani, 275 Ill. App. 3d 1074, 1087, 657 N.E.2d 12, 22 (1995) (customer’s
reliance on a Checker cab advertisement on previous occasions was “completely irrelevant if
the plaintiff did not rely upon the advertisement on the night in question”). It is the plaintiff’s
burden to produce sufficient evidence of each element of the cause of action. Nolan v.
Weil-McLain, 233 Ill. 2d 416, 430, 910 N.E.2d 549, 556 (2009). A plaintiff meets his burden of
production as to a given element “ ‘when there is some evidence which, when viewed most
favorably to the plaintiff’s position, would allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude the
element to be proven.’ ” Nolan, 233 Ill. 2d at 430, 910 N.E.2d at 556 (quoting Thacker v. UNR
Industries, Inc., 151 Ill. 2d 343, 354, 603 N.E.2d 449, 454 (1992)). A fact may be proven
through circumstantial evidence when a reasonable inference can be drawn from the
circumstances. Caruso v. M&O Insulation Co., 345 Ill. App. 3d 345, 348, 802 N.E.2d 327, 330
(2003); Walsh v. Dream Builders, Inc., 129 Ill. App. 2d 280, 287, 264 N.E.2d 247, 251 (1970)
(defining circumstantial evidence as proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a
reasonable inference of the truth of the fact sought to be proved). Proof which relies upon mere
conjecture or speculation, rather than reasonable inference, is insufficient. Thacker, 151 Ill. 2d
at 354, 603 N.E.2d at 454.
¶ 93 In this case, Jacobs has no memory of why he got into cab No. 160 that night because he
suffers from retrograde amnesia as a result of his brain injury. Therefore, it is impossible for
him to present direct evidence that he relied on the appearance of authority in that instance. The
Jacobses maintain, however, that reliance was demonstrated by habit testimony. The Jacobses
presented evidence that he had a habit of taking YCA-affiliated taxicabs which stemmed from
a bad experience with a Checker cab in the 1980s. Jacobs explained that he is “very risk
adverse” and ever since his “terrible” and fear-inducing incident with a reckless Checker
driver, he has been a loyal YCA customer on “hundreds” of occasions because he has believed
YCA drivers to be responsible and their vehicles to be safer and cleaner than other cabs. He
also said “Yellow Cab was my cab company” and “without a doubt I was relying on Yellow
Cab [that night] as I had hundreds of times before.” Zielinski corroborated Jacobs’s habit
evidence by testifying that she has taken numerous cabs with him over a period of many years
and that he would invariably take YCA cabs. She testified that she and Jacobs would meet at a
cabstand at least 40 to 50 times a year, for nine years, and that he would invariably insist on
taking a YCA cab, even if that meant disregarding the public’s custom of taking the first cab in
line and waiting for a YCA cab to be available. She characterized Jacobs’s regular practice of
choosing only YCA as one of his “quirks.” In addition to testifying to Jacobs’s regular practice,
Zielinski testified that when they left the restaurant that evening, Jacobs said “I’m going to go
grab the Yellow cab,” which is not the same as saying he was going to take “a cab.”
¶ 94 From this evidence of Jacobs’s habit of relying on YCA cabs even if it was inconvenient
and his specific choice of taking “the Yellow cab” that evening, a jury could reasonably infer
that Jacobs relied on YCA that night. Therefore, the Jacobses met their burden of providing
“ ‘some evidence’ ” of reliance. Nolan, 233 Ill. 2d at 430, 910 N.E.2d at 556 (quoting Thacker,
151 Ill. 2d at 354, 603 N.E.2d at 454).
¶ 95 YCA makes the additional argument that the habit evidence was improperly admitted.
Specifically, it argues that the Jacobses did not prove his conduct was “semi-automatic,”

- 26 -
occurred with “invariable regularity,” and was nondiscretionary, because he occasionally
chose to take Flash cabs. YCA argues a habit cannot be discretionary, and that his use of Flash
cabs indicates he did not have a habit of selecting YCA vehicles. The Jacobses respond that his
corroborated, uncontradicted testimony about his habit of taking Yellow cabs was “detailed,
specific and similar enough to raise a reliable inference” that he conformed to his habit on the
night of the crash.
¶ 96 Illinois has adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 406 (Fed. R. Evid. 406) regarding the
admission of habit and routine practice evidence. Alvarado v. Goepp, 278 Ill. App. 3d 494,
496, 663 N.E.2d 63, 64 (1996); Ill. R. Evid. Committee Commentary 1 (adopted Jan. 1, 2011)
(Illinois’s rules of evidence had been created ad hoc through case law, statutes, and supreme
court rules, until 2011 when the Illinois Supreme Court approved evidentiary rules modeled on
the Federal Rules of Evidence). Rule 406 provides:
“ ‘Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization,
whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant
to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in
conformity with the habit or routine practice.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Alvarado, 278
Ill. App. 3d at 496, 663 N.E.2d at 64 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 406).
¶ 97 The decision to admit habit evidence is within the trial court’s discretion provided a proper
foundation has been laid indicating that the conduct has become “semiautomatic, invariably
regular and not merely a tendency to act in a given manner.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Alvarado, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 497, 663 N.E.2d at 64. “ ‘It is the notion of virtually
invariable regularity that gives habit its probative force.’ ” Alvarado, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 497,
663 N.E.2d at 65 (quoting Michael H. Graham, Cleary and Graham’s Handbook of Illinois
Evidence § 406.1, at 229 (6th ed. 1994)). See also Michael H. Graham, Graham’s Handbook of
Illinois Evidence § 406.1, at 287 (10th ed. 2010) (“Habit describes one’s regular response to a
repeated specific situation so that doing the habitual act becomes semiautomatic and extremely
regular.”).
¶ 98 YCA’s reliance on Knecht v. Radiac Abrasives, Inc., for the proposition that the conduct
must “take[ ] on characteristics of a ministerial rather than discretionary act” is unavailing,
because in that instance, the court was discussing routine business practices, rather than the
habits of an individual. Knecht v. Radiac Abrasives, Inc., 219 Ill. App. 3d 979, 987-88, 579
N.E.2d 1248, 1254 (1991) (“types of conduct qualifying for admission as a routine business
practice are ministerial [not discretionary] acts: mailing, filing, sending notice, and the like”).
An example of properly admitted habit evidence can be found in Keller, where the decedent’s
daughter testified that she visited her father at his shop every day, that he was open for business
13 hours every day of the week, and that during work hours he carried $300 to $400 cash on his
person. People v. Keller, 267 Ill. App. 3d 602, 607, 641 N.E.2d 891, 894 (1994). The court
found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the evidence and that the jury
could infer from the testimony that the shopkeeper had a substantial amount of currency on his
person on the day he was shot, and could infer from the fact that he had no currency on his
person after the shooting that the shooter took that currency. Keller, 267 Ill. App. 3d at 609,
641 N.E.2d at 896.
¶ 99 Here, the testimony was detailed and included specific numbers and time parameters. It
was also not mere conjecture or speculation and was reliable. As just discussed above, Jacobs
testified that for approximately 15 years he always took Yellow cabs when he hailed one on the

- 27 -
street or at a cabstand because he believed the drivers were responsible and that the vehicles
were safer and cleaner than other cabs. Zielinski testified that for nine years she met Jacobs at
a cabstand near their offices at least 40 or 50 times a year and that he only took Yellow cabs, to
the point that he would let other types of taxis go and wait for a YCA vehicle. Although he
sometimes took Flash cabs as YCA now argues, Jacobs did so when he stayed late at the office,
and he used Flash on these occasions because of the convenience of using a voucher to charge
the cab fare and driver tip directly to his legal client. The fact that Jacobs occasionally chose to
use Flash cabs when he stayed late in his office building does not undermine the evidence that
his choice of YCA vehicles on other occasions was “semiautomatic, invariably regular and not
merely a tendency to act in a given manner.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alvarado, 278
Ill. App. 3d at 497, 663 N.E.2d at 65. Therefore, we find no error in the court’s admission of
habit evidence. Moreover, the jury could properly conclude from the evidence that Jacobs was
in a YCA vehicle that night not because of chance or some unexpected reason, but because of
his purposeful, invariable habit of relying on YCA as a quality taxicab provider.
¶ 100 Finally, YCA contends that if the court properly admitted the habit testimony, the jury
should have been instructed with a legal definition of habit. We reiterate that the trial court has
discretion regarding which instructions to give the jury. Luye, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 809
N.E.2d at 161. We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the instruction, considered as a
whole, does not fully apprise the jury of the relevant law. Luye, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 809
N.E.2d at 161. Illinois Rule of Evidence 406 does not provide a definition of habit. Ill. R. Evid.
406 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). Nevertheless, as stated above, Illinois courts have held that a party
seeking to admit habit evidence “must show conduct that becomes semiautomatic, invariably
regular and not merely a tendency to act in a given manner.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Alvarado, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 497, 663 N.E.2d at 65.
¶ 101 Here, after the court determined that an instruction on habit should be given, YCA
requested that the court also include a legal definition of “habit.” The court stated that it was
not aware if there was an accepted legal definition and habit may just have its ordinary
meaning. YCA replied that the jury “should know that they may have to find that in order to
conclude that it’s a habit, it’s semi-automatic, invariably regular, and not just a tendency to
act.” The court denied the request to give a definition and reasoned that counsel could make
that point in closing arguments. Ultimately the jury was instructed as follows:
“You have heard testimony about whether or not Marc Jacobs had a habit of using
taxicabs bearing the Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc. emblem.
It is for the jury to determine whether or not he had that habit.
Evidence of the habit of a person may be used to prove that the conduct on a
particular occasion was in conformity with the habit.”
¶ 102 Upon review of the instruction given, we find that the jury was fully, fairly, and
comprehensively apprised of the relevant law. Luye, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 809 N.E.2d at 161
(quoting Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 273-74, 775 N.E.2d at 973). Although courts have referred to
habit as a regular response to a distinct situation that is “semi-automatic” and “invariably
regular,” the jury was not required to make these specific findings. Moreover, there is no single
accepted definition in Illinois. In addition, jury instructions are viewed as a whole and
reversible error occurs only when a party shows the instructions misled the jury and seriously
prejudiced the party’s right to a fair trial. Schultz, 201 Ill. 2d at 285, 775 N.E.2d at 979. In this
instance, as discussed above, the evidence was clear that Jacobs purposefully and habitually

- 28 -
used YCA vehicles. The jury could be properly instructed to take that evidence into account in
determining whether he relied on YCA as a provider of taxicab services on the night at issue.
There is nothing in the record to suggest that YCA was prejudiced in the least because the
instruction it was given did not include certain terminology.
¶ 103 Ezeagu’s primary contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by
allowing the Jacobses’ accident reconstruction expert to contradict eyewitness testimony about
the cab’s speed on the highway. Ezeagu contends Arce testified that from his perspective as a
passenger in the box truck, the cab was traveling at a speed “just like us,” at approximately 55
to 60 miles an hour, meaning at or about the posted highway speed limit, and thus, Arce
corroborated Ezeagu’s testimony that he drove (lawfully) at 55 miles per hour and was just
passing the Ogden exit when Jacobs screamed and Ezeagu veered off the highway. Ezeagu
contends that in Illinois, a reconstruction expert may testify only if there are “no eyewitnesses
to the occurrence and it is necessary to rely on the [expert’s] knowledge and application of
principles of physics, engineering and other sciences beyond the ken of the average juror.”
Block v. Lohan Associates, Inc., 269 Ill. App. 3d 745, 754, 645 N.E.2d 207, 214 (1993).
Ezeagu contends that (1) neither of these two foundational requirements was met, (2) O’Hern
improperly opined about the credibility or believability of a witness by testifying Arce “is not
being truthful,” and (3) O’Hern “did not use any science; instead, he just believed the
eyewitness to be untruthful and [then] speculated [about the cab’s highway speed].” Ezeagu
contends he is entitled to a new trial due to O’Hern’s improper testimony on a crucial issue.
¶ 104 The Jacobses respond that Ezeagu’s discussion of the law is misleading, his recitation of
the evidence is simply wrong, and O’Hern helped the jury make sense of the situation when he
opined about details to which there was no eyewitness testimony.
¶ 105 Whether to admit expert reconstruction testimony is a matter within the trial court’s
discretion (Palmer v. Craig, 246 Ill. App. 3d 323, 327, 615 N.E.2d 1294, 1297 (1993)), and in
our opinion, Ezeagu does not show that this standard was violated. Ezeagu incorrectly relies on
the statement of an appellate court in 1993 that “[r]econstruction experts may testify where
there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and it is necessary to rely on the [expert’s]
knowledge and application of principles of physics, engineering and other sciences beyond the
ken of the average juror.” (Emphasis added.) Block, 269 Ill. App. 3d at 754, 645 N.E.2d at 214.
The supreme court subsequently commented in 1994 that some “not entirely successful
attempts to [apply supreme court precedent]” had resulted in “unnecessary confusion about
whether expert reconstruction testimony may be admitted where there is also an eyewitness.”
Zavala v. Powermatic, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 542, 546, 658 N.E.2d 371, 373 (citing Michael H.
Graham, Cleary and Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 703.2, at 596 (6th ed. 1994)).
The supreme court clarified that “[w]hether to admit expert reconstruction testimony,
eyewitness or not, turns on the usual concerns of whether expert opinion testimony is
appropriate generally.” (Emphasis added.) Zavala, 167 Ill. 2d at 546, 658 N.E.2d at 373.
Accordingly, even when there is an eyewitness, an expert’s testimony may be admitted if that
expert is (1) qualified in the field and (2) offers knowledge and the application of scientific
principles that are beyond the ken of the average juror and thus, enables the jury to make
factual determinations. Palmer, 246 Ill. App. 3d at 327, 615 N.E.2d at 1297 (the presence of
eyewitnesses is but one factor, not the conclusive factor, in determining whether expert
reconstruction testimony is admissible); Watkins, 172 Ill. 2d at 205, 665 N.E.2d at 1385
(whether to admit expert reconstruction testimony depends upon the usual concerns of whether

- 29 -
expert opinion is appropriate); Coffey v. Hancock, 122 Ill. App. 3d 442, 448, 461 N.E.2d 64, 69
(1984) (expert reconstruction testimony may supplement lay witness testimony “where
knowledge and application of principles of physics and chemistry are necessary to the jurors’
proper interpretation of a vehicle’s speed”). Furthermore, an expert may testify as to an
ultimate fact or issue without impermissibly treading on the fact finder’s role, because the fact
finder is not required to accept the expert’s conclusion. Zavala, 167 Ill. 2d at 545, 658 N.E.2d
at 373.
¶ 106 With regard to the first factor as to whether the expert’s opinion should have been
admitted, O’Hern testified at length about his qualifications in the field of accident
reconstruction, and Ezeagu is not challenging them. Therefore, we address only the second
factor, which is whether O’Hern’s testimony was needed to explain scientific principles to the
jury and if his testimony would help the jury in making factual determinations.
¶ 107 We note that Ezeagu is asking us to focus on a small part of Arce’s testimony. Arce’s
eyewitness account did corroborate, to some extent, Ezeagu’s statement about the highway
speed of the cab, when Arce initially said that the cab was traveling at about 55 to 60 miles per
hour and at about the same speed as the box truck Arce was traveling in. However, Ezeagu fails
to address Arce’s additional testimony that he then saw the cab speed up as it abruptly crossed
from left to right in front of the box truck. Ezeagu’s sudden movement and lane changes were
what drew Arce’s attention to the cab.
¶ 108 We also note that O’Hern never said Arce was “not being truthful,” as Ezeagu now argues.
O’Hern said many other things, such as pointing out that Arce “clearly said he [had] never even
looked at the [box truck’s] speedometer.” O’Hern also said “the physical evidence doesn’t
match” all of Arce’s recollections. Thus, O’Hern suggested Arce misjudged the situation,
instead of suggesting that Arce was untruthful and had intentionally told falsehoods to the jury.
Furthermore, when O’Hern was specifically asked on cross-examination whether he believed
Arce’s testimony, O’Hern answered: “I listened to it, but I didn’t use their speed of 55 to 60 for
anything in my opinion, so it doesn’t matter if I believed it or not. I didn’t use it.” When
pressed further on cross-examination as to whether he “[d]isregarded” Arce’s estimate of the
cab’s highway speed, O’Hern unequivocally answered, “No. There was no reason to use it. He
didn’t tell me the speed of the vehicle when he left the road, so that’s what I was looking for.”
Thus, Ezeagu has misstated O’Hern’s remarks about Arce’s testimony.
¶ 109 Furthermore, O’Hern was indicating that from his point of view as an accident
reconstruction expert, the accident was caused by “the speed of the vehicle when he left the
road,” not by the earlier speed of the vehicle as it traveled on I-294. Therefore, Ezeagu’s main
argument for reversal focuses on a detail, his highway speed, which is information that O’Hern
did not need to know, “didn’t use,” and had “no reason to use” when O’Hern calculated the
cab’s speed at that crucial moment when it “left the road.” O’Hern, like defense expert
Barrette, did not begin his work with Arce’s estimate of the cab’s highway speed and then
work forward through the event. Nor did O’Hern first “speculate[ ]” about the cab’s highway
speed as Ezeagu now argues. Neither expert tried to first determine the vehicle’s highway
speed before the driver was in trouble. Instead, the experts began their calculations by
determining the speed of the cab when it slammed into the concrete wall. Both O’Hern and
Barrette determined the speed at the point of impact and then, working backward through the
event, they calculated the cab’s speed as it traveled across the grass, vaulted in the air, slipped
off the banked edge of the cloverleaf, and traveled on the highway. O’Hern, like Barrette,

- 30 -
explained that he gathered data from various police reports and made use of his measurements
and observations at the crash site, his personal inspections of the wrecked vehicle and an
exemplar vehicle, some historical crash data from national databases, the vehicle’s possible
stopping distance at various speeds, mathematical calculations, principles of physics, and
some manual or automated diagramming in order to extrapolate the cab’s speed at individual
stages of the accident. O’Hern, like Barrette, applied his training and experience to objective
information to determine the speed of the vehicle not only when it crashed into the concrete
wall but also when it traveled on I-294. Thus, Ezeagu’s criticism of the expert testimony is a
point not well taken. Ezeagu misstates the facts when he argues that O’Hern “did not use any
science; instead, he just believed the eyewitness to be untruthful and [then] speculated [about
the cab’s highway speed].”
¶ 110 Consistent with Arce’s testimony that the cab was initially traveling at 55 to 60 miles per
hour, but sped up in order to move to the exit ramp, O’Hern opined that the cab was moving
faster than 55 miles per hour, at somewhere between 55 and 70 miles per hour, when the cab
left the highway exit ramp. O’Hern also testified to the maximum speed at which the minivan
could travel and still adhere to the curve of the exit ramp and the purpose of the ramp’s
advisory speed of 25 miles per hour. Arce did not testify about the cab’s speed when it left the
roadway, and without the expert testimony, there would have been no evidence indicating how
fast the vehicle was moving at the critical moment when it went out of Ezeagu’s control on the
ramp. O’Hern’s comprehensive testimony about the accident was based on physical evidence
and mathematical concepts that are beyond the ken of the average juror, and O’Hern expert’s
opinion assisted the jury in making sense of a situation where there was only partial eyewitness
testimony.
¶ 111 In short, we agree with the Jacobses’ contention that Ezeagu’s description of the expert
testimony is simply wrong, that his presentation of the law is misleading, and that O’Hern
ultimately helped the jury make sense of the situation when he opined about details to which
there was no eyewitness testimony. For this latter reason, we find that the reconstruction
evidence was needed and properly admitted for the jury’s consideration, and it is not a proper
basis for reversal of the judgment. Furthermore, even if O’Hern’s testimony was somehow
damaging to Ezeagu’s defense, Ezeagu had the opportunity to refute it with his own expert
reconstruction witness. To have allowed one expert to opine, but not the other, would have
been unfair. Zavala, 167 Ill. 2d at 547, 658 N.E.2d at 373; Kelly v. American Motors Corp.,
130 Ill. App. 3d 662, 672, 474 N.E.2d 814, 821-22 (1985) (where plaintiff put on expert
testimony, it was unfair to prevent the defendant from introducing the same kind of evidence).
For these reasons, we emphatically reject Ezeagu’s main argument for reversal of the
judgment.
¶ 112 Like YCA, Ezeagu cites Alvarado and argues that the trial court erred in admitting general
careful habit testimony because of a lack of foundation showing that Jacobs’s “careful habits”
were semiautomatic and invariably regular. Alvarado, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 497, 663 N.E.2d at
64. However, where YCA focused on Jacobs’s and Zielinki’s testimony, Ezeagu’s appeal
focuses on Deborah’s testimony.
¶ 113 Deborah told the jury that her husband is generally a man of “careful habits,” and she
answered affirmatively when asked specifically whether he was careful when riding a bicycle
or driving a car, and is protective of his children and himself. When Ezeagu objected to the line
of questioning, there was a sidebar conference, after which the trial judge said to the jury: “I’m

- 31 -
going to sustain the objection. Ladies and gentlemen, just disregard the testimony regarding
power tools, bicycles, driving a car and protection of children. The remainder of the questions
on that subject will stand.”
¶ 114 Ezeagu contends that he was prejudiced by Deborah’s testimony because she was the only
witness to contradict his testimony that the accident was caused by his passenger’s sudden and
unexpected screaming. Ezeagu contends that his positive testimony would have allowed the
jury to find that the passenger was the sole cause of the accident and then return a verdict in
Ezeagu’s favor.
¶ 115 The Jacobses respond that “careful habits” testimony is allowed where a plaintiff’s
retrograde amnesia prevents him from remembering the accident at issue, and also that Ezeagu
was not prejudiced because the only basis for the jury’s 12% fault adjustment was Ezeagu’s
testimony. The Jacobses contend their “careful habits” testimony was the only evidence they
could use to contradict Ezeagu’s self-serving and preposterous contention that he, a mature,
professional driver, drove off the road and into a concrete wall because his passenger told him
he was missing his turnoff.
¶ 116 It is within the court’s sound discretion to admit or deny the introduction of evidence, and
we reverse only if we find an abuse of that discretion. Grewe v. West Washington County Unit
District No. 10, 303 Ill. App. 3d 299, 306, 707 N.E.2d 739, 744 (1999). It bears repeating that
an abuse of discretion has occurred only when it can be said that no reasonable person would
adopt the same view as the trial court. Schwartz, 177 Ill. 2d at 176, 685 N.E.2d at 876.
Although usually evidence of general good habits is not admissible, evidence of careful habits
is admissible to show due care when the plaintiff suffers from retrograde amnesia and no
eyewitnesses other than the defendant are available. Eichorn v. Olson, 32 Ill. App. 3d 587, 591,
335 N.E.2d 774, 776 (1975) (admitting the testimony of a family member concerning
plaintiff’s careful habits where there were no witnesses to collision and plaintiff was unable to
recall events at or before the time of impact, due to amnesia). This is the standard applicable to
Ezeagu’s argument, instead of the standard applicable to habit testimony, for which a
foundation must be laid that the conduct is semiautomatic and invariably regular.

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4169726. Public record. Not legal advice.