there is no common law duty to supervise unless an employer has notice that there are problems with a particular employee. 30 C.J.S. Employer — Employee §205, at 254 (2007). It is undisputed that Kinko’s had no such knowledge; it further did not undertake to supervise, so did not acquire a duty to supervise through an undertaking as it did with regard to training. Moreover, in my view, the entire ruling — not just the first count— should be reversed because the major factors the trial court considered in reaching its conclusion that Kinko’s was negligent in training and supervision were inadmissible evidence, not even arguably proximately related to the injury. The ruling is therefore against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Rybak v. Provenzale, 181 Ill. App. 3d 884, 897 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Kinko’s cannot be liable where
holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding that the trial courts damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it was based upon inadmissible evidence holding that the court can consider inadmissible evidence if the party against whom it is offered does not object to the evidence by moving to strike it holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative