Where relevant to the case, the trier of fact may be allowed to view real property,{footnote}Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, & 7-118 (jury view allowed at request of either party in eminent domain cases).{/footnote} the actual scene of an occurrence, or an object that cannot be brought to court.{footnote}Yearey v. Holbrook, 198 S.E. 441 (Va. 1961).  {/footnote}  Whether to allow a viewing is a matter within the trial court’s discretion,{footnote}But see Belmont Nursing Home v. Department of Public Aid, 108 Ill. App. 3d 660, 439 N.E.2d 511 (1st Dist. 1982)(judge’s visit to nursing home and inviews of patients improper).{/footnote} and may be disallowed for practical reasons and also out of concern that inadmissible evidence may thereby be brought to the jury’s attention.  A viewing may also be disallowed where other evidence has been introduced which adequately serves the purpose, such as testimony and photographs.{footnote}Eizerman v. Behn, 91 Ill. App. 2d 263, 132 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1956)(commercial laundry machine).{/footnote}

If a viewing is allowed, the judge, the attorneys and the parties must be present at all times.{footnote}47 A.L.R. 1227.{/footnote}

Most courts treat the viewing as evidence in and of itself that may support a verdict,{footnote}Price Bros. v. Philadelphia Gear Corp., 649 F.2d 416 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099 (1981).
            Otey v. Carmel Sanitary District, 219 Cal. 310 (1933).{/footnote} while some consider it as merely an aid to understanding the evidence presented in the courtroom.{footnote}Uhrig v. Coffin, 72 Idaho 271, 240 P.2d 480 (1952); Devon Bank v. Department of Transportation, 95 Ill. App. 3d 690, 420 N.E.2d 605 (1st Dist. 1981)(court’s decision improperly based on view of traffic flow).{/footnote}