Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

An Illinois appellate court found that the City of Chicago was immune from liability regarding a city resident's fall on a dangerous back staircase. While the plaintiff filed a claim against the building owner, she also filed a personal injury claim against the City of Chicago. However, the trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, a decision which the plaintiff sought to reverse in its appeal. Hess v. Flores, et al., 1-08-1653.

The Chicago personal injury lawsuit arose after the plaintiff, Rebecca Hess, fell from the 2nd floor, rear staircase of the apartment building where she lived. At the time of her fall a piece of the staircase's handrail was missing; in its place was yellow caution tape. According to City documents, the rear staircase at 2050-2052 W. Summerdale Avenue, Chicago had been in disrepair for several years and constituted a dangerous condition.

In the two years prior to Ms. Hess's accident, the rear staircase had been subjected to multiple City inspections. The conclusion of each inspection was that the staircase represented a "dangerous and hazardous condition." Not only had the City cited the owner on multiple occasions over the years, but eventually began judicial proceedings to help correct the apartment's building code violations. In fact, it was because of the City's involvement that the plaintiff filed a claim against the City of Chicago even though they were not directly responsible for Ms. Hess's injury.

Continue reading "City of Chicago Not Liable for City Resident's Faulty Staircase - Hess v. City of Chicago" »

This past Tuesday the Toyota Motor Company made an announcement that it would be recalling over 50,000 of its Tundra pick-up trucks. The voluntary recall came after the auto manufacturer discovered that this model's driveshaft slip yokes were not properly casted and assembled.

The driveshaft slip yoke is cast out of molten metal, meaning that a mold is first made which the melted metal is then poured into. However, because of flaws in the casting process, the casted yokes have been found to have a tendency to crack or break under normal wear and tear. This product defect could either be the result of a design defect or a flaw in the manufacturing process.

This product defect could be dangerous to truck drivers because the driveshaft slip yoke is responsible for connecting the truck's driveshaft to its transmission. Therefore, if the yoke were to fail, then the engine's power would not be transferred to its wheels and the driver could lose control of the truck. For example, if the front driveshaft of a Toyota Tundra were to break, then the truck could be in danger of turning over.

Continue reading "Toyota Voluntarily Recalls 2011 Tundra Pick-Up Trucks Due to Defective Driveshafts" »

Jury selection has begun on the retrial of Rod Blagojevich, the former Governor of Illinois. Late last summer Blagojevich faced his first federal trial for claims of racketeering and widespread corruption in his office. Perhaps most famously, Blagojevich was accused of trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. However, after a lengthy and expensive trial, Blagojevich was found guilty of only one charge - lying to the FBI. The jury was hung, or unable to agree, on any of the remaining counts.

Because the jurors in the original Blagojevich trial were unable to agree upon the remaining counts, the case was declared a mistrial. This means that the federal government could choose to retry Blagojevich on all the other counts, an option it chose to exercise.

If found guilty of the remaining federal charges Blagojevich faces a lengthy prison sentence. While he already was convicted on one felony count last summer, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, the judge elected not to complete Blagojevich's sentencing until the remaining counts have been tried. This means that although Blagojevich was found guilty over seven months ago that he has not served any of his jail time.

Continue reading "Blagojevich Retrial Underway: Ex-Governor Faces Twenty Federal Charges" »

Crib bumper pads have been the topic of debate for several years. While some claim that they are perfectly safe and harmless, others claim that crib bumper pads put infants at risk for suffocating in their cribs. A recent report that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has not taken adequate steps to investigate crib bumper pads calls into question the product's safety.

Over the years, the CPSC has investigated allegations of babies' dying as a result of suffocating in their crib bumpers. However, it now seems that at least 17 of those cases were not fully investigated by the CPSC. While the agency did look into the infant deaths, it determined that in at least 12 of the 17 cases it was difficult to clearly implicate the crib bumper pads in the infants' deaths. The CPSC instead suggested that the deaths were caused not by the defective bumper pad design, but instead were the result of infants suffocating from pillows or blankets that were also in the cribs.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has taken a much firmer stance than the CPSC, going so far as to urge parents not to use crib bumper pads because of the risk of suffocation. These claims have been supported in autopsy reports conducted by medical examiners and coroners, who have affirmed that bumper pads were involved in the infant suffocations. In light of all this evidence, the CPSC must now decide whether it is safe for parents to continue using this crib product.

Continue reading "Infant Deaths Caused by Crib Bumpers - Safety Agency Needs Stricter Investigation Standards" »

An Illinois Appellate Court denied defendant's motion for a new trial in the Illinois auto accident lawsuit of Estate of Rosemary Oglesby et al. v. William Berg, et al., No. 1-09-0639. The defense's appeal involved claims that the trial court had acted incorrectly when it refused to send one of the plaintiff's medical bills to the jury during its review of the case. The jury ended up ruling in favor of the plaintiff, an outcome that the defense argued could have been different had the jury seen that medical bill.

The personal injury lawsuit involved an Illinois auto accident between the plaintiff, 60 year-old Rosemary Oglesby, and defendant William Berg, who was driving a park district van at the time of the car crash. Two days after the car accident, Oglesby presented to one of her regular physicians; Ms. Oglesby was seeing many different doctors at the time for her ongoing battle with cancer. The exhibit at issue was a billing statement from that specific doctor, which included the visit shortly after the car accident, along with twelve additional visits over the years.

The exhibit had been produced by the plaintiff, which is typical considering it was her medical bill and was likely being used to support the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of past medical bills. However, it was the defense that requested that this particular exhibit be presented to the jury room while it deliberated its decision in the Illinois personal injury trial. The trial judge denied the defendants' request and the exhibit was not formally presented to the jury after the closing arguments.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Car Crash Verdict Despite Judge's Error - Oglesby v. Berg" »

An Illinois court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment in Brandon Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, 2011 WL 211008 (N.D. Ill.). The court disagreed with the defendant manufacturer that the Illinois product defect claim did not satisfy the requirements for strict liability or negligence claims and allowed the product defect case to continue.

Stollings involved claims that the Ryobi Technologies manufactured a table saw that was unreasonably dangerous due to several design defects. The Illinois product liability lawsuit was filed after the plaintiff, Brandon Stollings, lost two fingers while he was maneuvering the table saw. Stollings was cutting a piece of wood when it was kicked back at him by the blade, causing his fingers to push forward into the rotating blade. Stollings's product liability lawsuit claimed that Ryobi Technologies's table saw was unreasonable dangerous because its anti-kickback device was attached to the saw's blade guard instead of being an independent system, it lacked flesh-detection technology, and sawdust tended to accumulate in the blade guards and obstruct the view of the operators.

However, the defense filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss both Stollings's strict product liability counts and his negligence counts, citing evidence that Stollings had removed the blade guard prior to operating the table saw and that the plaintiff admitted to never reading the safety manual. The defense argued that if the plaintiff failed to utilize the safety features it had included then he was over 50% liable for his own injuries.

Continue reading "Product Defect Case Not Barred by Assumption of Risk Issue - Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies" »

A recent Illinois personal injury lawsuit involving the injury of a seven year-old girl at a local playground brought up issues of tort immunity in Illinois. Tort immunity laws are meant to determine to what degree a municipality, in this case the park district responsible for maintaining the playground, is immune from its actions. In Steven Tagliere, etc. v. Western Springs Park District, No. 1-09-2633, the plaintiff alleged that the Western Springs Park District was negligent in its maintenance of a seesaw at its park.

Seven year-old Taiylor Tagliere was playing on a seesaw at a park owned by the Western Springs Park District with five other girls when her ankle became lodged in the middle section of the seesaw, resulting in a broken ankle. Steven Tagliere, Taiylo'rs father, testified that when he later went to inspect the seesaw it was missing several bolts, which was evidence that the seesaw contained an "obvious defect." Under Illinois tort immunity laws, the alleged defect needs to be obvious in order to satisfy one of the requirements for the municipality's liability.

However, the other factor that the plaintiff must prove is that the failure to maintain the seesaw constituted "willful and wanton misconduct" on behalf of the park district. It was the plaintiff's failure to prove this that led to the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, despite the presence of an obvious defect. The plaintiff appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, stating that the lower court had erred in dismissing the case and asking the court to reconsider the evidence.

Continue reading "Illinois Park District’s Poor Inspections Do Not Satisfy Willful and Wanton Conduct Requirement Under Illinois Tort Immunity Act - Tagliere v. Western Springs Park District" »

A federal jury in New York has returned a verdict in favor of Toyota in one of the first lawsuits brought to trial since the 2008 Toyota recalls. The product defect case of Amir Sitafalwalla v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2008 cv 03001 (E.D. N.Y.) was tried in Central Islip, Long Island, New York.

In this product defect lawsuit, the plaintiff, Amir Sitafalwalla, filed his lawsuit after a 2008 car accident involving his 2005 Toyota Scion. Sitafalwalla, a doctor from Long Island, crashed his vehicle into a tree after it experienced a sudden acceleration. Plaintiff's attorneys maintained that the single vehicle car accident was caused either by product defects in either the vehicle's electronic throttle system or its floor mats, a claim that was backed up by plaintiff's engineering experts.

In response, Toyota's attorneys claimed that the accident was a result of the driver's negligence, not its floor mats or electronic system. The jury apparently agreed with the defendants, returning a not guilty verdict in its favor after just an hour of deliberation.

Continue reading "Jury Sides With Toyota in Product Defect Case - Sitafalwalla v. Toyota Motor Corporation" »

A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision affects the way Illinois personal injury attorneys are compensated by medical lien holders, such as as hospitals, clinics, or doctors. Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, et al. and Howell v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, Nos. 110199, 110200 Cons reversed an appellate court decision that held that hospitals were responsible for paying plaintiff attorney fees when the plaintiff's attorney had assisted in securing payment for the hospital's outstanding medical lien.

The original lawsuit revolved around three different plaintiffs who were injured in three separate car accidents; however, each plaintiff was treated at hospitals owned by Southern Illinois Hospital Services. Each plaintiff failed to pay his or her hospital bills, so Southern Illinois Hospital Services filed medical liens for each plaintiff under the principles of the Healthcare Services Lien Act.

A lien is entered when an entity, in this case Southern Illinois Hospital Services, lays claim to future funds in payment for past services provided. Because the individual plaintiffs failed to pay their medical bills, the hospital was seeking payment from the defendants who caused the injuries that necessitated the hospital treatment. The idea is that had the defendants not caused the auto accidents, the plaintiffs wouldn't have needed treatment, and the hospital wouldn't be left with unpaid bills. Therefore, if proven negligent, then the defendants are responsible for paying the outstanding hospital bills.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Rules Common Fund Doctrine Does Not Apply to Healthcare Liens - Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services" »

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court's ruling regarding the plaintiff's request to amend its complaint. In Linda Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc., et al., 10-2193, the plaintiff sought to add an additional theory of liability onto her original complaint. While this is not typically against judicial procedures, the plaintiff attempted to amend her complaint at the onset of her product defect trial. The court denied her request because doing so would have changed the plaintiff's theory of liability, which would have drastically affected the way the product liability case was tried.

The plaintiff's original product defect claims arose out of an incident with her Forest River recreational vehicle (RV). As the plaintiff, Linda Aldridge, was exiting her RV, the steps unexpectedly retracted back into the vehicle, causing Aldridge to fall and injure her shoulder. In her original complaint, Aldridge alleged that her injury was a result of Forest River's defective step controller.

The Illinois product liability complaint alleged that the step controller's unexpected retraction was the cause of Aldridge's fall. Counts I and III were based on strict liability, stating that the RV step controller was not reasonably safe for its intended use, which was to raise and lower the RV's steps. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that Forest River had failed to properly wire, install, and test the step controller.

Continue reading "Illinois Court Denies Plaintiff's Request to Change Theory of Liability in Product Defect Lawsuit - Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc." »

A Cook County jury came to a decision in a Chicago trucking accident case involving a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus driver and a semi-trailer. The truck driver admitted to having caused the truck accident; however, her lawyers contested the extent of the CTA bus driver's injuries. The Illinois jury returned a verdict of $363,853 in favor of the plaintiff bus driver in Earnestine Johnson v. Marian Pociask, Mr. Bult’s, Inc., 09 L 1613.

At the time of the Chicago truck accident, the plaintiff, Earnestine Johnson, and the defendant truck driver, Marian Pociask, were both driving down Chicago's LaSalle Street and were both making a left-hand turn onto 47th Street. However, Johnson was making the turn from the left-hand lane, while Pociask was making the turn from LaSalle's center lane. As Pociask was turning, her truck clipped the right front bumper of Johnson's bus.

Not only did Pociask's truck drift into Johnson's lane, causing the accident, but Pociask was making an illegal left-hand turn from the center, straight-only lane. At the time of the bus accident, Pociask was employed by Mr. Bult's, a waste transportation company. Both Pociask and her employer were named as defendants at the personal injury trial and both admitted liability for the truck accident.

Continue reading "Chicago Bus and Truck Collision Receives Verdict of $363,853 - Johnson v. Mr. Bult’s, Inc., et al." »

When we are young our parents tell us to look both ways before crossing the street, and in driver's ed we all learn to use caution when approaching intersections and to look both ways. However, as we become more and more used to approaching intersections we forget these simple lessons. The case of Felis Aspera v. Raul Munoz, RSJM Restaurant, Taqueria Atotonilco #1, Ltd., 07 L 9236, serves as a reminder of how dangerous intersections can be.

In 2007, 61 year-old Felis Aspera was crossing the intersection at Kedzie Avenue and 26th Street. Ms. Aspera was already in the crosswalk as Raul Munoz's truck was approaching the same intersection. However, Munoz failed to see Ms. Aspera as he made a left-hand turn directly into her path, running right into Ms. Aspera. As a result of her pedestrian-car accident, Ms. Aspera suffered multiple fractures to her left arm and leg and sustained a mild brain injury.

Due to the severity of her injuries, Ms. Aspera required open-reduction surgery on her left femur and required hardware inserted into her left radius and ulna. In addition, Ms. Apsera now walks with a noticeable limp despite the assistance of her newly acquired cane and has limited use of her left hand and is unable to grasp objects.

Continue reading "Cook County Pedestrian Crosswalk Accident Results in $300,000 Jury Verdict - Aspera v. RSJM Restaurant" »

An Illinois personal injury lawsuit resulting from a head-on collision resulted in a $483,000 verdict. While there was not any debate regarding who was at fault for the car accident, there was some disagreement as to the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and whether her sustained injuries had impacted her career; Gina Guide v. James Garlanger, 09 L 1867.

The plaintiff, Gina Guide, was a two-time U.S. national weightlifting champion and was training to earn a slot on the 2012 U.S. Olympic weightlifting team. However, on November 21, 2007, James Garlanger was out driving in icy and snowy conditions when he lost control of his car. Garlanger's car crossed into oncoming traffic and crashed head-on into Guide's vehicle.

The 22 year-old Gina Guide sustained a compound fracture and dislocation of her right ankle, multiple fractures along her tibia and fibula, and several torn ligaments. Since her 2007 car crash, Guide has required three different surgeries to treat her leg injuries and is likely to need two additional procedures. And despite all these procedures, Guide walks with a permanent limp and cannot flex her right ankle.

Continue reading "Illinois Head-On Car Crash Results in $483,000 Jury Verdict – Guide v. Garlanger" »