It is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit expert testimony that he believes will aid in the understanding of the issues in the case. ( Miller v. Rokita (1985), 131 Ill. App.3d 774, 778, 476 N.E.2d 26, 28.) "Whether a witness is competent to give an expert opinion is a question of fact for the trial court, and the court's determination will be disturbed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion." ( Miller, 131 Ill. App.3d at 778, 476 N.E.2d at 28.
Evidence admitted at trial without objection "is given its natural probative effect and force, even if the evidence is improper or generally incompetent." Miller v. Rokita, 131 Ill. App. 3d 774, 779 (1985). Thus, the circuit court could consider the invoice in awarding damages.
First, during Dr. Atkins's testimony, he mentioned his monthly salary of $50,000 and his bonus compensation, as demonstrated on the Corporation's tax returns, without any objection from defendants' attorney. See Miller v. Rokita , 131 Ill. App. 3d 774, 779, 86 Ill.Dec. 850, 476 N.E.2d 26 (1985) (stating that the failure of a party's attorney "to object at appropriate times to the evidence constitutes a waiver of that objection, and the evidence is given its natural probative effect and force even if the evidence is improper or generally incompetent"). ΒΆ 47 Second, at various times during Dr. Atkins's testimony, the issue of his compensation and the Corporation's profits was raised by the Corporation's attorney.
The appellate court may only review the admissibility of testimony for error if the opposing party objected to the testimony at trial. Miller v. Rokita, 131 Ill. App.3d 774, 779 (1985). From a review of the record, it is clear to us that the defendant did in fact object to the testimony concerning permanency during Dr. Cicmanec's evidence deposition. It is equally clear to us that the plaintiff has caused this court to spend unnecessary time addressing this issue on account of this misrepresentation of the facts in the plaintiff's appellate brief. Moreover, the plaintiff cites no authority that suggests that once an objection in an evidence deposition is ruled upon by the trial court the objecting party must object again when the testimony is read to the jury in order to preserve the objection for appellate review.
When a party offers evidence, it must also offer all possible theories under which the evidence may be admissible since it is not the trial court's duty to sort out such theories; the trial court's duty extends only to ruling upon the arguments presented. Miller v. Rokita (1985), 131 Ill. App.3d 774, 781, 476 N.E.2d 26. Plaintiff's third issue is whether the trial court erred when it refused to give a jury instruction tendered by plaintiff regarding a driver's duty at an intersection.