Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Manufacturers have an obligation to make their products safe for regular use. However, how far does this obligation extend? Are manufacturers required to make it overly difficult for consumers to modify their products? A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision examines to what extent manufacturers are liable for after-market modifications made to their products; Geronimo Perez v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., et al., Nos. 2-11-0382, 2-11-0486 cons (April 9, 2012).

In January 2008, Geronimo Perez was injured while using a scissor lift machine manufactured by JLG Industries. In his product liability lawsuit, Perez claimed that his injury could have been prevented if there had been a guardrail on the scissor lift machine. What is interesting about Perez is that JLG Industries had installed a guardrail when it designed its scissor lift; however, someone had removed the guardrail after the scissor lift machine left JLG's factory.

So while JLG Industries had designed its scissor lift machine so that falls like Perez's would be prevented, someone unconnected to the company had removed that safety feature. Yet Perez alleged that JLG was liable because it should have foreseen that someone would remove that guardrail, thereby causing his subsequent fall. JLG countered that it was not responsible for modifications others made to its product and that its scissor lift machine's design was not defective.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Publishes Opinion Regarding the Use of Tools to Modify Product Causing Injury - Perez v. JLG" »

While not every civil lawsuit requires a party to hire an expert, there are some instances where an expert's opinion and testimony are vital to the case's outcome. For example, if a plaintiff is making medical malpractice claims against a doctor or hospital, he or she will likely hire a medical expert to help support those claims. Likewise, in a product liability lawsuit, a party would generally need to hire some sort of expert to help prove that there was in fact a design or manufacturing defect. The vital nature of these experts' testimony means that if for some reason those experts' opinions are barred, the plaintiff will have an extremely difficult time proving the defendant's negligence.

This is exactly what happened in the product liability lawsuit of Raymond Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., No. 10-1194 (November 18, 2011). Bielskis filed a lawsuit against Louisville Ladder in which he claimed that its scaffolding design was defective and caused his work injury. In order to prove his claims, Bielskis's attorneys had hired an engineering expert. After the trial court barred the engineering expert's testimony, Bielskis filed an appeal in which he asked the court to reinstate his expert's testimony.

Bielskis arose out of a fall Bielskis had while using a scaffold constructed by Louisville Ladder. Bielskis had originally purchased the scaffold in 1997 while working as an acoustical ceiling carpenter for R.G. Construction. During that time, Bielskis was responsible for providing the equipment and scaffolding for most of his jobs. However, in 2001, Bielskis began working for International Decorators, who generally supplied its workers with scaffolding equipment. As a result, Bielskis rarely used his Louisville Ladder scaffold after switching employers in 2001.

Then in 2005, Bielskis decided to use his Louisville Ladder scaffold on a job. Bielskis inspected the scaffold's condition before using it; however, not noting any problems, Bielskis determined it was safe to use. But when he placed his weight onto one of the scaffold's caster stems, the scaffold broke and collapsed. Bielskis fell and injured himself; that scaffolding injury is the subject of the current lawsuit.

Continue reading "Engineering Expert Excluded from Testifying Because He Did Not Perform Any Tests to Form His Opinions - Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc. " »

Compared to many jobs, construction work is a dangerous field. For most office workers, their job's safety policies involve emergency situations, like a fire. However, for construction workers, safety policies and procedures are a part of their every day tasks. These safety policies and procedures are helps many construction site injuries and are essential to decreasing the number of injured construction workers.

Therefore, when these policies and procedures are not in place, the likelihood of a construction site injury increases. In the New York case of Carmona v. Dormitory Authority of New York, No. 303798/08 (N.Y., Bronx Co. June 10, 2011), a construction worker filed a personal injury lawsuit alleging that his work injury was caused by a lack of safety procedures.

Forty-one year-old Raymond Carmona was working as an ironworker at the time of his injury. Carmona was in the process of removing an old steel awning from a New York building owned by the Dormitory Authority of New York when he struck his head on a duct. Carmona lost his balance and fell 25 feet to the ground below. As a result of the fall, Carmona fractured his coccyx and sacrum and severely injured his lower back. His injuries eventually required a fusion surgery to his lower back, severely limiting his future mobility.

Continue reading "$6.4 Million Settlement for Construction Worker's Injuries Following 25 Foot Fall - Carmona v. Dormitory Authority" »

An Illinois construction worker's lawsuit was dismissed after the trial judge found that the plaintiff had failed to show sufficient evidence to support his claim against the one of the construction job subcontractors. While the plaintiff attempted to overturn this ruling in his appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court agreed with the trial court, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's Illinois construction injury claims against the ironwork subcontractor. Oshana v. FCL Builders.pdf.

The personal injury claim was based on an injury that occurred at the Willow Inn construction site. Plaintiff Anwar Oshana was working as an ironworker for JAK Ironworks when he fell from a steel beam. Oshana filed a personal injury claim against Suburban Ironworks, the site's ironwork subcontractor that was responsible for fabricating and delivering the project's structural steel. Oshana claimed that Suburban Ironworks was responsible for ensuring that the steel was erected in a safe manner.

However, Suburban Ironworks argued that it was not responsible for JAK Ironworks's employees safety. Suburban Ironworks pointed out that it did not have an ongoing presence at the job site and therefore was not responsible for overseeing the safety of the various employees involved in erecting its steel structures. Under this theory, Suburban Ironworks moved to dismiss the case on the basis that Oshana had not presented sufficient evidence to show that Suburban had control of the construction site. The trial judge agreed and dismissed Oshana's claim against Suburban Ironworks, a decision that Oshana then appealed.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal for Subcontractor After Ironworker Injury - Oshana v. FCL Builders" »

The Illinois Appellate Court recently entered a ruling on whether or not the payment of a workers' compensation lien cancels out a party's contribution claim. The court found that while a contribution claim is not eliminated when a workers' compensation lien is waived following a jury verdict, it is null and void when the lien is waived following a settlement. Scott McMackin v. Weberpal Roofing.pdf.

Scott McMackin owned and operated his own construction company, McMackin Construction Company. In August 2006, Scott was working on a construction site when he was injured. Scott sued Weberpal Roofing, the construction contractor, for negligence in causing his construction site injury. In turn, Weberpal Roofing filed a third-party contribution claim against McMackin Construction under the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act.

And while Scott's personal injury case against Weberpal Roofing settled for $450,000; Weberpal's claim against McMackin remained unsettled. However, following Scott's settlement, McMackin Construction sought to dismiss Weberpal's claim by filing an affirmative defense. In its filing, McMackin Construction pointed to the fact that it had waived its workers' compensation lien following Scott's settlement with Weberpal. Because Scott worked for McMackin Construction, it had been responsible for paying Scott $134,797 under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act for the injury he sustained while at work.

According to McMackin Construction's defense, the $134,797 was the maximum amount that Weberpal was entitled to recover from McMackin under its third-party contribution claim. However, Weberpal had relinquished its right to recover those funds when McMackin waived its workers' compensation lien for Weberpal's settlement. The trial court agreed with McMackin and dismissed Weberpal's third-party claim; however, Weberpal appealed this decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.

Continue reading "Construction Company Loses Bid for Injury Contribution Claim - McMackin v. Weberpal Roofing" »

In a high-risk industry like construction, following correct safety procedures is extremely important. An unsafe work site may not only lead to a construction worker injuring themselves, but could also cause injuries to others. When construction workers cut corners on safety it can have dangerous consequences.

Take for instance the Indiana construction case of John Mazzorana v. Emil Perrotta Co., Inc., 06 L 12451. The 33 year-old plaintiff, John Mazzorana, fell 30 feet after stepping onto an unsupported walking plank. As a result of the fall, Mazzorana ruptured his Achilles tendon and a tendon in his foot and sustained fractures to his left heel and spine.

At the time of the 2006 construction injury, Mazzorana had been working as a bricklayer on the Coffee Creek Center construction project in Chesterton, Indiana. Mazzorana and his fellow bricklayers began work on the project at 7:00 a.m. That same morning, carpenters from Emil Perrotta Co. were also working on the construction project and borrowed some of the bricklayers' scaffolding to assist their work. However, after the carpenters were done, they left an unsupported walking plank in place.

It was this unsupported walking plank that Mazzorana stepped out onto as he returned to work. The unsupported plank gave way, causing Mazzorana to fall 30 feet to the ground. The severity of his injuries required Mazzorana to undergo surgery; however, he still has hardware in his foot. It has been over five years since his construction site injury, yet Mazzorana is still unable to return to work as a bricklayer.

Continue reading "$8 Million Jury Verdict for Bricklayer Who Fell 30 Feet at Construction Site - Mazzorana v. Emil Perrotta Co." »

A Chicago ironworker was unable to convince a Cook County jury that another construction worker was responsible for his construction site accident and injuries. Instead the jury decided in favor of the defendant construction company in Anthony Silva v. O’Sullivan Plumbing, Inc., 06 L 13525, and denied the plaintiff damages for his construction site injury.

Anthony Silva was an ironworker employed by Walsh Construction, a general contracting construction management company. At the time of his 2004 construction injury, Silva was working on the Shoreham Residential project located at 400 E. South Water St. in Chicago. Silva was performing work on a plumbing pipe that was located between two concrete walls that would be used to create the elevator core walls.

At trail, Silva testified that he had followed the required safety protocol by using a tie-wire to tie by the concrete form wall back in order to expose the pipe so that he could work behind the form walls. However, while he was working, the tied-back form wall fell and struck Silva on his back and wrist. He required surgeries for both his cervical disc injury and his wrist injuries.

Continue reading "Jury Finds for Construction Company in Ironworker Injury at Loop High-Rise - Silva v. O'Sullivan Plumbing" »

While most lawsuits are tried in the same state where they occurred, an Indiana construction accident was recently the subject of an Illinois personal injury lawsuit. The Indiana injury was tried in Illinois because one of the defendant's businesses was based out of Illinois. However, to make John Mazzorana v. Berglund Construction Co., et al., No. 06 L 12451, even more unique, although the case was tried in Illinois, the court applied Indiana law.

The personal injury lawsuit was brought by John Mazzorana, an Indiana resident who was working as a bricklayer for Hawk Construction at construction site in Chesterton, Indiana. The 2006 Indiana construction accident occurred after Mazzorana fell 30 feet after stepping on a plank. The Indiana resident ruptured his Achilles tendon and fractured both his heel and a vertebrae.

Berglund Construction Co. was the general contractor for the Indiana construction job and as such was one of the main defendants in the construction accident lawsuit. Bergland Construction was based out of Illinois and so moved to remove the Indiana lawsuit to Illinois courts, a move Mazzorana's attorneys agreed to. However, Berglund then settled its portion of the lawsuit with Mazzorana for $400,000 prior to the start of the Illinois trial. Therefore, the only remaining parties in the Illinois lawsuit were all based out of Indiana.

Continue reading "Bricklayer Who Fell at Construction Site Awarded $8.3 Million; Mazzorana v. Emil Perrotta Co." »

A Chicago jury awarded $850,000 to a Chicago construction employee who suffered severe injuries after falling from his work on elevated train tracks. The personal injury verdict in Raul Luna et al. v. Chicago Transit Authority, Kiewit Western Co., Divane Brothers Electric Co., et al., No. 07 L 12550, came despite evidence that suggested the employee was injured because he violated some of the construction site's safety requirements.

Raul Luna was an industrial painter employed by SCI Coatings, LLC. At the time of his construction site accident, Luna was working on Chicago Transit Authority's (CTA) elevated railroad tracks as part of the CTA's Chicago Loop renovation project. Luna was brought in to help sandblast and paint columns on the Van Buren St. train tracks between State St. and Wabash Ave. Because the train tracks were elevated, workers were using a manlift to reach the above ground areas. This essentially involved workers securing themselves using a harness-like device in order to prevent them from falling in the event that they slipped while working above ground.

In addition to his painting duties, Luna was also responsible of removing the construction site's containment structure, which was constructed of tarps and wood two-by-fours. In order to reach the top of containment structure, Luna used the manlift as required by the job's safety requirements. Luna proceeded to remove the nails from the two-by-fours in order to break down the containment structure. However, at some point Luna untied himself from the manlift, exited its basket area, and began to crawl across the elevated tracks.

It was while crawly unprotected across the tracks that Luna fell; one of the two-by-fours broke as Luna was removing a nail, sending him falling to the street below. Luna sustained an epidural hematoma, a comminuted displaced wrist fracture, and a comminuted fibula fracture. The fibula fracture required an internal fixation surgery so that Luna's bones would heal properly. In addition, Luna suffered from a traumatic brain injury, which left him with cognitive, psychological, and behavioral deficits following his construction site injury.

Continue reading "$850,000 Jury Award for Painter Who Falls From Elevated Train Tracks - Luna v. Chicago Transit Authority" »

Three Cook County construction workers secured a $5.4 million settlement from Walsh Construction Company in a Will County personal injury lawsuit. The settlement during the middle of the Cook County trial regarding the 2006 construction site accident.

In 2006, the three plaintiffs were working on a construction of a bridge that would extend Interstate 355 over the Des Plaines River. The bridge project was intended to have three lanes of traffic in each direction and rise to over 100 feet above the ground. The project was overseen by Walsh Construction Company, who in turn hired various subcontractors to handle different components of the construction project.

The three plaintiffs were employed as ironworkers by one of the subcontractors hired by Walsh Construction and were working on the bridge's foundations at the time of the construction site accident. The plaintiffs became injured after a steel rebar cage collapsed. The rebar cage is meant to provide structure to the bridge and hold the concrete in place. The structure is typically composed of reinforced steel, with the cages generally being constructed off site.

As a result of the Cook County construction accident, one of the plaintiffs sustained two herniated discs in his back and broke his ankle. Another tore his rotator cuff and also suffered aggravation of a prior anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. And the last faired the best of the three injured workers, sustaining only a contusion, or bruise, to his elbow.

Continue reading "$5.4 Million Settlement for Workers Injured in Construction Accident" »

A recent Appellate Court decision clarified the degree to which Illinois homeowners owe a duty to guests on their property. The court upheld a Cook County verdict that found the defendant homeowner liable for the injuries the plaintiff sustained after falling down a stairwell at the defendant's home. Donald Van Gelderen et al. v. David Hokin, No. 1-09-3152.

The plaintiff, Donald Van Gelderen, had been installing window coverings at defendant David Hokin's Glencoe home. After finishing the window installation, Van Gelderen went to exit the residence by way of a side stairwell, the same stairwell he had used upon entering the home. However, the second time did not pass without incident. As he opened the door to exit, Hokin fell down the basement stairs located to the right of the door.

Van Gelderen filed a premise liability lawsuit against Hokin, in which he alleged that the layout of the stairwell and the side door was unreasonably dangerous and it was this dangerous condition which was the cause of Hokin's fall. The exterior door handle was located on the left side of the door, which then swung inward to the right. As he exited, Van Gelderen grabbed the door handle with his right hand and then stepped backwards to avoid the door's path as it opened. However, as he did so, Van Gelderen stepped towards the basement stairwell, which was located to the right off of the outside entrance, and fell down the flight of stairs.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Jury's $3 Million Damages Award for Stairwell Fall; Van Gelderen v. Hokin" »

A Chicago jury entered a $3 million jury verdict against a forklift manufacturer in an Illinois product liability lawsuit. The Chicago lawsuit arose out of a work injury involving 35 year-old Keith Price and a forklift designed and manufactured by Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc. As a result of the Chicago work injury, Price was left with an amputated right leg and was unable to work for over five years. Keith Price v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc., Voss Equipment, Inc., 06 L 12915.

The work injury occurred in February 2005 at a Chicago plant of ICI Uniqema, where Price was employed as a forklift operator. On the date of the work injury, Price was using a forklift to load a bag of spent nickel into a nearby hopper. However, as Price attempted to the bag into the hopper, it became caught on another bag. Price then needed to use a chain to readjust the position of the spent nickel bag. These chains were still attached when Price lifted the forks above the bag, at which point the forklift tipped over onto its side.

While Price was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the forklift accident, the seat itself was not properly attached to the forklift. As a result, the seat Price was sitting on rolled forward as the forklift moved. Price's legs did not remain inside the vehicle and were crushed underneath the forklift. The weight of the large machine caused severe crushing injuries to his right leg, necessitating a below the knee amputation. In addition, Price sustained facial fractures to his jaw and lost four of his teeth.

Continue reading "$3 Million Verdict for Leg Amputation in Forklift Mishap - Price v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc." »

In the Cook County personal injury case of Wayne C. Bland and Suzanne Bland v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 07 L 1633, a company takes responsibility for the negligence of one of its employees. The worker at the Citgo Petroleum Corp.'s Lemont plant left a piping system valve open, thereby releasing hydrofluoric gas into the surrounding areas. The cloud of noxious gases left another man hospitalized and led to the filing of this work injury lawsuit.

The 41 year-old plaintiff, Wayne Bland, was working as a crane operator for Imperial Crane at the time of his work injury. After breathing in the dangerous gas, Bland required a six day hospitalization due to the respiratory damage caused by the toxic gas. Bland was diagnosed with acute respiratory tract damage, which presented as a general chest tightness and a persistent cough. While Bland's symptoms lasted for several months, his medical providers were unable to find any significant respiratory problems.

Because Bland was not employed by Citgo, it would not be responsible for paying any workers' compensation he received as a result of his work injury. However, its employee was the cause of Bland's accident, so by association Citgo was also at fault for Bland's injury. Therefore, Bland brought a lawsuit against Citgo which accused the petroleum company of being responsible for its employee's negligence in leaving the pipe valve open and for causing Bland's subsequent injuries.

Continue reading "Jury Awards $403,000 to Worker Exposed to Toxic Gas at Citgo Refinery - Bland v. Citgo" »

A Central Illinois product liability lawsuit springing from a construction site injury returned the highest verdict in Tazewell County history. The Illinois jury awarded $13.5 million to the twenty-some year-old plaintiff who suffered a traumatic leg amputation; Justin Stone v. MiTek Industries and Central Illinois Truss, Inc., 10th Judicial Circuit, Tazewell County, Illinois (2011).

At the time of his work injury, 19 year-old Dustin Stone was working on a machine building roof trusses, or roof rafters, which are the triangle supports used to build roofs in homes. The roof truss machine consisted of several different work tables spread out over the length of the 100 ft. long machine. Stone was adding support to the wood trusses by hammering metal plates into the various truss joints.

Stone was standing between two opposite-facing machine tables when another truss operator drove a crane gantry toward the area where Stone was working. Protocol requires the gantry operator to first make sure the aisles are clear of workers; however, this was obviously not done on the date of Stone's construction site injury. The gantry pinned Stone against a metal rail, crushing his left femur so severely that he required an above the knee amputation of his left leg.

Continue reading "Illinois Construction Worker Receives $13.5 Million Verdict for Machine's Design Defect - Stone v. MiTek Industries" »

A construction job site can be a confusing place. Not only is there the obvious confusion created by the construction itself, but the different levels of workers and managers further complicates matters. The tangled web of responsibility and liability on construction job sites becomes evident in the wake of a construction site injury, as lawyers sit down and try to determine whose to blame.

Consider the Illinois personal injury case of Piotr Mieszkowski v. Patel Builders Inc., Divyadeep Patel v. Illinois Brick Layers Inc., 08 L 4113. Piotr Mieszkowski was working as a brick layer at a job in South Barrington, a northwest suburb of Chicago. While at the construction site, the twenty-nine year-old Mieszkowski was being supervised by his boss from Illinois Brick Layers, Inc. Mieszkowski spent the majority of the morning working on building large stone columns and railings at the Barrington residence.

However, problems arose when Mieszkowski's boss left the construction site. While his direct supervisor was away, the construction job's general contractor asked Mieszkowski and his co-worker to help empty a large storage container. It was while performing this task, which had nothing to do with his actual job at the construction site, that Mieszkowski became injured. A large, heavy box fell on his ankle as he was emptying the storage container. Mieszkowski suffered a severe ankle fracture and needed to undergo an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) surgery during which pins and rods were placed in his ankle to fix the fractured bone in place.

Continue reading "Cook County Brick Layer Injured, Multiple Parties Blamed - Mieszkowski v. Patel Builders, Inc., et al." »