Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

A recent Cook County lawsuit was reviewed by the Illinois Appellate Court, which found that the trial judge had erred in dismissing the plaintiff's personal injury claim. While the judge had held that the case facts supported a summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital, the appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to support some of the plaintiff's claims. Caburnay v. Norwegian American Hospital, 2011 IL App. (1st) 101740 (Dec. 23, 2011).

The injury in question occurred at Norwegian American Hospital. The plaintiff, Dr. Fernando Caburnay, was an anesthesiologist at the hospital and was waiting for an elevator at the time of his accident. It was a rainy day and a 6 ft. x 10 ft. rubber mat had been placed in front of the elevator. As Dr. Caburnay was stepping back from pressing the call button, he tripped backwards over the mat. The back of his head hit a couch, and he fractured his spine, leaving him a quadriplegic.

Dr. Caburnay filed a personal injury lawsuit against Norwegian American Hospital, the basis of which was their negligence in creating a dangerous situation in the form of the rubber and fabric mat. Dr. Caburnay testified that the mat was the cause of his injury; he tripped after catching his foot on a fold in the mat and falling backwards. However, the hospital denied liability for Dr. Caburnay's injuries and filed a motion for summary judgment in which it asked the judge to dismiss the claims against Norwegian American Hospital. The judge complied, at which point Dr. Caburnay filed an appeal.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Finding for Hospital in Doctor's Injury Case - Caburnay v. Norwegian American Hospital" »

A recent appellate court decision involving claims of violations by Chicago police officers has received a lot of media attention because of the severe nature of the resulting injuries suffered by the plaintiff. While the Chicago Police Department claimed that its officers had qualified immunity and could not be held responsible for the harm done to Christina Eilman, the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed. Paine v. Cason, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (7th Cir. Ill. Apr. 26, 2012).

Paine was brought by the mother of 21 year-old Christina Eilman against the City of Chicago and its police officers regarding the May 2006 arrest of Ellman. Officers were called to respond to a disturbance caused by Ellman as she attempted to board a plane at Chicago's Midway Airport. Ellman was suffering from mental illness, but had not been taking her medications; as a result she was exhibiting disruptive behavior and needed to be escorted from the airport.

Police initially took Ellman to the 8th District Station, located on 63rd St., but then transferred her to the 2nd District Station, a woman-specific holding facility located on South Wentworth Ave. While at the 2nd District, Ellman was both maniac and calm, exhibiting behaviors typical of her diagnosed bipolar disorder. Despite her obvious mental illness, she was not given any medical treatment or a psychiatric evaluation. Instead, she was released two days after her initial arrest, still in an unstable mental condition.

The accusations in the complaint focus both on the lack of medical care offered while Ellman was in custody and on the manner of her release. Instead of returning Ellman to Midway Airport, or a similarly safe area, she was released directly from the 2nd District Station, which is located near the Robert Taylor Homes, a Chicago public housing project with an extremely high crime rate. In addition, Ellman was released without her cell phone, was scantily clad in short shorts and a bare midriff shirt, and was not in a mental condition that allowed her to appreciate the danger of her situation. Consequently, Ellman wandered into a vacant apartment with several young men, where she was raped at knife point. She then either jumped or was pushed out of a 7-story window, resulting in severe brain damage and other injuries.

Continue reading "U.S. Court of Appeals Rules For Parents of Disabled Woman, Letting Family Sue Chicago Police for Negligence - Paine v. Cason, et al." »

The Illinois Appellate Court ruled on a premise liability claim involving a building owner's duty to maintain clear sidewalks and driveways. At issue was whether or not the plaintiff's amended complaint raised new issues of fact in Kristopher McCarthy v. R&M Holdings & Quality, No. 1-10-2778 (February 2, 2012). While the trial court held that it did not, the appellate court found that it did and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

McCarthy was brought after the plaintiff slipped and fell on the way to his parked car. McCarthy had just finished his shift at the Harwood Heights Cosco on an icy December day. His car was parked in the parking lot next to Cosco's parking lot. According to McCarthy, he was walking through the snow and did not realize that there was a layer of ice underneath; he fell and dislocated his right shoulder and right knee.

McCarthy brought his premise liability lawsuit against R&M Holdings & Quality, the owner of the commercial building and property. In his complaint he alleged that the icy patch he fell on was part of the run-off from the building's roof and gutters. There was a downspout that ran directly into the parking lot; McCarthy alleged that this downspout was the source of the water that formed the ice that he fell on and therefore was caused by the building owners and not a natural hazard.

In his first complaint, McCarthy cited ordinary negligence and per se negligence under the Harwood Heights Municipal Code, §15.24.100. While ordinary negligence requires a party to prove that someone acted in an unreasonable or wanton manner, per se negligence simply requires a party to show that an entity violated an established law or code. In response, the defendant property owner filed a motion for summary judgement on the basis that the case could be decided without a trial. The judge dismissed the plaintiff's original claims, but allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Allows Premises Liability Case to Proceed Under Safety Code - McCarthy v. R&M Holdings & Quality" »

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" »

A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision provided additional clarification regarding the admissibility of photographic evidence. At issue was whether or not a judge had correctly allowed photographs taken at the scene of an accident to be admitted into evidence during a Cook County personal injury trial. The appellate court ruled that judge had and upheld the jury verdict in Patricia Williamson v. Luis Morales, 2012 IL App. (1st) 110324-U.

Williamson involved a 2006 car accident in which the defendant Luis Morales rear-ended the plaintiff Patricia Williamson's vehicle. And while Morales admitted to having caused the accident, there was some debate as to the extent of Williamson's injuries. Williamson refused treatment by paramedics at the accident scene, but then did head to the Christ Medical Center Emergency Room just one hour later. And even though her x-rays did not show any fractures, she continued to experience pain and treatment with a chiropractor for four to five months following the accident.

When Williamson brought her personal injury claim against Morales he denied that the car accident was responsible for the extent of Williamson's injuries and her lost time from work. And when Williamson's attorney attempted to produce photographs from the accident scene as a way to demonstrate the severity and nature of the car accident, Morales's attorney objected on the basis that they were not relevant and could not be introduced unless in conjunction with expert testimony. The court agreed and stipulated that the photographs could not be introduced unless the defendant first opened the door to their submission.

Continue reading "Photographic Evidence May Be Found Relevant Without Expert Testimony - Williamson v. Morales" »

Typically, if a driver has received a ticket for causing a car accident, they will likely be found guilty by a jury. However, in a recent DuPage County lawsuit, the jury found in favor of the defendant driver even though she had pled guilty to a traffic ticket related to the auto accident.

The car accident occurred in May 2006 on 63rd Street in Downers Grove, Illinois. The plaintiff driver's vehicle was stopped at the time. And although the defendant driver began to slow down, she then incorrectly decided that the plaintiff's car had begun to move forward. Consequently, the defendant failed to slow down in time to avoid the accident and ended up hitting the back of the plaintiff's car.

The 53 year-old plaintiff then brought a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant driver, in which he claimed that the car accident had resulted in permanent medical problems. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed he was now suffering from myofascial pain syndrome, a chronic pain disorder. As a result, the plaintiff stated that he was left with constant pain and permanent impairment and disability; the lawsuit sought compensation for both his past and future medical expenses.

Continue reading "Illinois Jury Finds for Defendant Driver Who Was Ticketed for Hitting Stopped Vehicle" »

When someone has been in a major car accident, their injuries are oftentimes fairly obvious and not contested by either party. However, if the car accident is a relatively minor fender-bender, the injuries are often not as obvious or as immediate. Smaller accidents tend to result less in broken bones and more in soft tissue injuries, such as ligament strains, muscle strains, etc. However, these soft tissue injuries can still result in large medical bills and have permanent effects on the injured party.

In a recent DuPage County car accident lawsuit, the plaintiff received $277,000 for a ligament tear in her wrist. This verdict was delivered despite the fact that the plaintiff failed to seek medical attention for her wrist injury until about a month after the actual car crash. In addition, her claimed injury was at the site of a prior work injury, for which she had already undergone multiple surgeries.

The accident in question occurred on Rowling Road (Route 59) in Addison, Illinois; Rowling has just one lane of traffic in each direction with a wide, paved shoulder on either side. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff driver was making a right-hand turn onto a residential roadway; meanwhile, the defendant driver was attempting to pass the plaintiff on the right shoulder. The plaintiff reported that she saw the defendant driver on the shoulder and quickly turned left in order to avoid a major collision. However, there was a glancing blow between the two vehicles, which fortunately only resulted in minimal damage.

Continue reading "$277,000 Illinois Jury Verdict for Driver's Ligament Hand Injury " »

An Illinois employee who was involved in a car accident during the course of his employment sought to recoup payments from both his employer's workers' compensation policy and its car insurance policy. When the insurance company denied his claims, the employee filed a lawsuit in order to recoup those costs. And while the Illinois Appellate Court allowed some of the plaintiff's claims, it denied others in Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035.

In 2007, the plaintiff, Curtis Burcham, was driving a truck for his employer, P&M Mercury Mechanical Corporation (P&M), when he was struck by an uninsured motorist. Burcham sustained multiple injuries from the truck accident and had to undergo several surgeries. Because the accident occurred while Burcham was working, his employer, P&M, paid for his medical expenses and lost wages out of its workers' compensation policy. To date, P&M has paid $490,000 for medical expenses, more than $100,000 for temporary-total incapacity, and continues to pay $925 per week based on Burcham's 2/3 weekly wage.

P&M also had an uninsured and underinsured motorist policy through West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. Since the other driver involved in Burcham's truck accident was not insured, he sought to receive additional payments from West Bend under P&M's truck insurance policy. However, West Bend denied the claim, citing a provision in its policy that it "will not pay for any element of loss if a person is entitled to receive payment for the same element of loss under any worker's compensation, disability benefits or similar law." West Bend's position was that since Burcham was already receiving workers' compensation payments for the truck accident that he was not entitled to any money from West Bend's uninsured motorist policy.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Limits Uninsured Motorist Claim for Workers' Compensation Benefit Claim - Burcham v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co." »

In rear-end accidents, juries tend to find in favor of the front car that was rear-ended. However in the personal injury lawsuit of Evange Bozinis v. Bree MacArthur, 10 AR-708 (Lake County), the jury found in favor of the second car that rear-ended the front car.

The car accident in question occurred in August 2005 at the intersection of Route 173 and Grimm Road in Antioch, Illinois. Evange Bozinis had been stopped at the intersection and had just begun to drive again when he was rear-ended by Bree MacArthur. The force of the impact caused Bozinis's vehicle to be pushed forward eight feet. The 66 year-old Bozinis sustained neck, back, shoulder and abdomen injuries as a result of the crash.

Bozinis filed a personal injury lawsuit against MacArthur in which he accused her of causing the rear-end accident. Bozinis claimed that the car accident resulted in over $8,000 in medical bills. However, MacArthur contested the extent of Bozinis's injuries. She pointed to the fact that Bozinis had not claimed any injuries at the scene of the accident. In addition, immediately following the car accident, Bozinis drove on to a family birthday party in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.

Continue reading "Illinois Jury Sides With Defendant in Rear-End Crash - Bozinis v. MacArthur" »

As a general rule, pedestrians have the right of way; however, this does not mean that the driver is always at fault. While car drivers have a duty to look out for pedestrians in a designated crosswalk, they do not have the same duty to watch for pedestrians on a designated roadway. In the Cook County personal injury lawsuit of Hashi Said v. Mamoudou Barry, 09 L 5973, the jury found in favor of the car driver, not the pedestrian.

Hashi Said was the pedestrian in this scenario. Said, a taxi cab driver, had parked his cab at a taxi holding area located at O'Hare airport. The taxi holding area is a designated area where cabs line up; it includes an area at the roadside where the cab drivers can socialize and take breaks. At the time of the pedestrian-car accident, Said was walking in the parking lot area when he was hit by a cab being driven by Mamoudou Barry.

The force of the collision caused the 33 year-old Said to sustain a left knee fracture and a tear to his left lateral meniscus. Said was out of work for ten months while he underwent three separate surgeries and physical therapy. And despite all his medical treatment, Said will likely need a knee replacement in the future.

Said filed a personal injury lawsuit against Barry, in which he alleged that Barry had caused the pedestrian accident by driving at an unnecessarily high speeds. According to Said's theory of liability, if Barry had not been driving at those high speeds, then the auto accident would not have occurred. Said was seeking reimbursement for his medical expenses, pain and suffering, and payment of his $72,793 workers' compensation lien.

Continue reading "Cook County Jury Finds for One Taxi Driver Who Struck Another at O'Hare Airport - Said v. Barry" »

Personal injury lawsuits like Heather Pflanz v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al. 08 L 4878, remind us that injuries can result from the activities we engage in on a daily basis. The plaintiff in the Chicago lawsuit fell after boarding a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus, injuring her leg so badly that she need surgery. And while the Chicago jury found the plaintiff to be partially responsible for her own injuries, it found that the bulk of the blame lay with the bus driver.

The incident occurred after 37 year-old Heather Pflanz boarded a northbound CTA bus near State Street and Maple Street. Pflanz boarded the bus and was looking through her purse to find her Chicago Card to pay the bus fare. However, the bus reportedly pulled away from the curb suddenly, causing Pflanz to lose her balance and fall forward.

As a result of her slip and fall injury, Pflanz fractured her right tibia/fibula in her lower leg. The severity of the break meant that Pflanz needed to undergo surgery and have nails and screws installed in her leg for additional support. Although Pflanz has recovered, she continues to have ongoing swelling, pain, and stiffness in her right ankle. In addition, Pflanz has since been diagnosed with patellar tendinosis in her right knee and may require additional surgery to fix her kneecap's tendon.

Continue reading "$225,000 Jury Verdict for CTA Passenger Who Fall on Wet Bus Floor - Pflanz v. Chicago Transit Authority" »

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court's ruling regarding the venue in a railroad employee's personal injury lawsuit. While the railroad company had wanted to transfer the case to Mississippi, the Illinois courts supported the plaintiff's choice of Illinois as the case's venue. Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 2012 WL 19455 (Ill.App.2012).

The plaintiff, Walter Fennell, had been working for Illinois Central Railroad Company for over 35 years. In 2009, Fennell filed a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad. The FELA lawsuit alleged that Fennell was exposed to asbestos, diesel exhaust, environmental tobacco smoke, sand, and toxic fumes, dust, and gases during the tenure of his employment, which in turn resulted in Fennell's current respiratory problems. Fennell was seeking compensation for the health problems he allegedly developed during the course of his employment with Illinois Central.

Shortly after Fennell was filed, Illinois Central sought to have the case dismissed under the doctrine of interstate forum non conveniens, which is a legal doctrine that allows a court to deny its jurisdiction if it finds that a different forum would be more convenient and more equitable. The defendant railroad argued that Mississippi would be a more convenient and fair location on the grounds that Fennell himself lived in Mississippi, that Fennell had worked in Mississippi for the majority of his career, and because the alleged injury likely occurred in Mississippi. However, the trial court denied the defendant's motion and affirmed Illinois's jurisdiction in the case; the defendants appealed this decision.

Continue reading "Illinois Retains Jurisdiction Despite Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Inconvenient Forum - Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company" »

In most rear-end accident lawsuits, the jury finds in favor of the driver who rear ends the other car. In most of these car accident cases, there might be some explanation for why the first car stopped and the expectation is that the second driver should be aware and stop in time to avoid an accident. However, in the Kane County lawsuit of Diane Flynn v. Soula Galanis, 10 L 49, the jury found that the first driver was primarily at fault.

The relevant car accident in Flynn occurred near the intersection of Route 47 and Freeman Road in Huntley, Illinois. The defendant in the personal injury lawsuit, Soula Galanis, allegedly cut in front of a line of traffic driving on Route 47 and then stopped suddenly in the left-hand lane. The car behind Galanis was unable to stop in time and ended up rear-ended Galanis's vehicle. Diane Flynn, the plaintiff in the personal injury claim, then rear-ended the second vehicle.

Flynn filed a personal injury claim against Galanis that alleged that Galanis's negligence caused the chain reaction car crash. Flynn sought to recover damages for her medical treatment, loss of normal life, and pain and suffering that she endured as a result of the car accident. Following the multi-car accident, Flynn was taken to the emergency room to treat her whiplash injury. In addition, Flynn made several visits to her doctor and underwent physical therapy treatment in an attempt to relieve her muscle pain. And while her medical treatment ended years before the personal injury trial, Flynn's physician testified that she would continue to have intermittent pain for the rest of her life due to the permanent injuries to her muscle fibers caused by the car accident.

Continue reading "$381,000 Verdict in Injury from Chain Reaction Car Crash - Flynn v. Galanis" »

In order for a case to be dismissed on summary judgment, there needs to be a clear and obvious outcome that precludes the need to hold a jury trial. A judge may grant a motion for summary judgment if there is only one possible conclusion a jury could find. The idea is that if it is already obvious which way the jury will find, then there does not need to be a jury trial. However, if there are any unresolved issues of fact which remain to be decided upon, then the civil suit needs to proceed to trial.

The Illinois Appellate court recently reviewed a trial judge's dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit after granting summary judgment in favor of the defense; Gregory Gvillo v. DeCamp Junction, 2011 IL App. (5th) 100262 (October 31, 2011). The defendants claimed that the plaintiff's claim was precluded under the contract sports exception, whereas the plaintiff contended that it did not apply based on the defendants willful and wanton misconduct. While the appellate court agreed with the defendants, it still found that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because a genuine issue of fact remained unresolved.

Gvillo was filed after Gregory Gvillo suffered an ankle fracture and nerve injury during a softball game. Gvillo was playing first base at the time of his softball injury when Aron Klenke was running towards first base when he collided with Gvillo. Gvillo filed a personal injury lawsuit against DeCamp Junction, Inc. and Jim Moultrie for not setting the softball field up according to Amateur Softball Association (ASA) guidelines. Gvillo also filed a claim against Klenke for his role in Gvillo's personal injury.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Confirms That Softball is a Contact Sport - Gvillo v. DeCamp Junction" »

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" »