Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

It is commonly acknowledged that employers have a duty to provide a safe, healthy environment to their employees. If an employer fails to provide a safe environment, perhaps resulting in a work injury, then that employer may be held liable for the employee's injuries. However, a new Illinois Supreme Court decision extends an employer's duty beyond just to its employee, but to the employee's family as well.

The Illinois case of Cynthia Simpkins v. CSX Transportation,110662 (March 22, 2012), was filed after the wife of a CSX Transportation employee developed mesothelioma; the wife alleged that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos on her husband's work clothes. The trial court dismissed the case on the basis that CSX owed no responsibility to its employee's wife because there was no direct relationship between her and CSX. However, both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that ruling, although for different reasons.

The Illinois Appellate Court decision held that not only does an employer have a responsibility to its employee's family members, but that the plaintiff had shown sufficient evidence to support its claims against CSX. Specifically, the court found that "it takes little imagination to presume that when an employee who is exposed to asbestos brings home his work clothes, members of his family are likely to be exposed as well." Therefore, the appellate court found that Simpkins had provided evidence to suggest that CSX was negligent and did not fulfill its duty to her. And while the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that in theory an employer does have a duty to its employees' family members, it did not agree that Simpkins had provided enough evidence to prove that CSX did in fact have a duty towards her.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Holds That No Relationship Needed Between Asbestos Exposed Person and Company - Simpkins v. CSX" »

In order to file a civil lawsuit, you need to have some concrete damages, such as medical bills, lost time from work, or property damage. However, oftentimes a party might also be seeking some non-concrete damages, such as loss of normal life, pain and suffering, or loss of society. The cost of these non-concrete damages is more subjective and therefore harder for the jury to quantify. However, the difficulty in determining the cost of these damages should not preclude a jury from awarding them.

In the Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of William Sloan, deceased v. South Shore Nursing & Rehabilitation Center LLC, et al. 09 L 14819, the trial jury elected not to award any damages for the plaintiffs' loss of society. As a result, the plaintiffs appealed the jury verdict for its exclusion of the plaintiffs' loss of society claim on the basis that the plaintiffs themselves had also suffered as a result of the decedent's death.

The original lawsuit was filed after William Sloan, a resident at South Shore Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, lit himself on fire after being left unsupervised in his room. Sloan had been trying to light a cigarette, but ended up setting himself on fire and suffering from first, second, and third degree burns. Those burns left Sloan susceptible to developing an infection, which in turn led to his death.

Sloan's daughters brought a wrongful death claim against the nursing home for its negligence in leaving Sloan unsupervised with smoking materials. The claim was brought under the Illinois Nursing Home Act and alleged that South Shore was responsible for Sloan's death. The Illinois jury entered a $1.65 million verdict against South Shore, which included damages for Sloan's medical expenses, his pain and suffering, disfigurement from the fire, and for his loss of normal life. However, the verdict failed to include any damages for the loss of society his daughters suffered upon his death.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Holds That Jury Was Wrong in Choosing Not to Award Loss of Society in Death Case - Watson v. South Shore Nursing & Rehab" »

An Indiana jury found entered a $4.25 million verdict against a truck driver and his employer for the wrongful death of 28 year-old Hawa Sissoko in Estate of Hawa Sissoko, deceased v. Roadway Express, Inc., YRC Worldwide, Inc., et al., 09 L 2542.

Sissoko's vehicle was stopped on an Indiana tollway; Sissoko's 2007 Dodge Intrepid was not pulled to the side of the road, but was in fact sitting in the right lane of traffic. According to eyewitness reports, Sissoko was standing behind her car when she was struck by a semi truck driven by Alfred Baggiani. Sissoko was pinned between the truck and her car, which then caught on firing; Sissoko died immediately as a result of the highway accident.

Sissoko was survived by her parents and eight siblings, all of whom lived in Mali, West Africa. And while Sissoko's parents had not seen her since 2000, they maintained regular contact by telephone. A lawsuit was brought by Sissoko's surviving family members against Baggiani according to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act. Sissoko's estate also brought a claim against Roadway Express, Inc., the trucking company Baggiani worked for, and its parent company, YRC Worldwide, Inc. The wrongful death claims sought damages for the loss of Sissoko's society that her family had allegedly suffered as a result of the defendants' negligence.

Continue reading "$4.25 Million to Family of Pedestrian Killed in Fiery Highway Crash - Estate of Hawa Sissoko v. Roadway Express, Inc." »

While the widespread use of the internet has provided many benefits to the legal community, e.g. online case law, electronic court dockets, etc., it has also brought some challenges. Take for instance the case of Eskew v. Burlington Northern.pdf. In Eskew, the defendants requested a retrial after discovering that one of the jurors had blogged about the trial.

At the Illinois wrongful death trial of Eskew, the jury awarded $4.75 million to the widow of Scott Eskew, a legally blind man who was killed by a train at a Berwyn Metra stop. The estate and family were represented by attorneys Michael Rathsack and Jay Paul Deratney. However, following the wrongful death trial, it was discovered that one of the female jurors had been posting blogs regarding the trial and jury deliberations while the trial was still going on.

Not only did the defendants argue that the blog posts violated the general jury instruction of not talking about the trial while it is going on, but also showed other discrepancies in the jury's behavior. The defendants requested that the trial judge launch an evidentiary investigation into the juror's blog and the alleged juror misconduct. However, the trial court denied this request; it is this denial that is at the issue of the defendants' appeal.

Continue reading "$4.75 Million Jury Verdict to Stand - Supreme Court Will Not Overturn Case of the "Blogging Juror" in Eskew v. Metra and BNSF Railway Co." »

Driver fatigue is a leading cause of roadway accidents which could have been easily avoided if the driver had only gotten enough sleep. For this reason, all commercially licensed truck and bus drivers are required to log both their driving hours and their breaks. If a driver adheres to these logbook requirements they should be able to avoid driver fatigue. However, if a truck or bus driver fails to follow these requirements it could lead to potentially fatal accidents.

Take for instance a 2005 highway crash that occurred in New York. A young bus driver had falsified his log book and was reportedly driving erratically. The bus driver ended up slamming into a truck that was parked on the side of the highway. Nineteen passengers were injured in the bus crash; three passengers and the truck driver were killed.

The Canadian bus had been chartered by a women's youth hockey team, the Windsor Wildcats, and was on its way to a ski resort at the time of the highway accident. The bus was driven by a 24 year-old bus driver who had only been working for Coach Canada for two months. According to eyewitness reports, he was driving erratically before the accident occurred and swerved directly into the parked tracker-trailer to cause the highway crash.

Continue reading "$36M Settlement in Charter Bus, Tractor Trailer Crash That Killed 4 and Injured Many" »

In TV courtroom dramas, the story always ends with the jury verdict. However, in real life, sometimes the jury verdict is just the beginning. Lawyers can appeal a jury verdict with the hope of reversing the verdict, or even of obtaining a new trial. And while most appeals only make it to the appellate court level, some are taken all the way to the supreme court.

In the wrongful death lawsuit of Tracey Powell for the Estate of Adam McDonald, deceased v. Dean Foods Company, et al., 2012 IL 111714, the plaintiffs received a $20 million jury verdict. However, the case did not stop there. One of the defendants filed an appeal, which resulted in a reversal of the $20 million verdict and a new trial. The plaintiffs then appealed that decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and were eventually able to get the original $20 million verdict reinstated. So while the plaintiffs were left with the initial outcome, it took a much longer time for them to claim their award.

The case facts in Powell involved a 2002 Indiana truck accident in which three people were killed. Christina Chakonas was attempting to make a left turn after stopping at a stop sign when she was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Jamie L. Reeves. Chakons and her two passengers, Adam McDonald and Diana Kakidas, were killed. A wrongful death lawsuit was filed against Reeves, his employer, and the company that owned the goods he was transporting.

Continue reading "$20 Million Jury Verdict Reinstated on Substitution of Judge Issue - Powell v. Dean Foods Co." »

The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a spoliation claim in a product liability lawsuit arising out of a 2004 car accident. The trial court had ruled that the insurer for the defendant vehicle salvage company did not have to contribute to any settlement that might arise out the salvage company's inappropriate destruction of the relevant vehicle. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling and found that the salvage company's insurance policy did in fact cover any claims arising out of spoliation of evidence. As a result of the appellate court's decision, the defendant's insurance company will now have to pay any reasonable damages arising out of the spoliation claim. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., et al., No. 1-10-1723 (December 16, 2011).

The product liability lawsuit was based on a 2004 SUV rollover accident. Michael Widawski's Nissan Pathfinder SUV rolled over, ejecting Monika Gramacki, its only passenger, from the vehicle as it rolled over. Gramacki died and her family brought a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for an alleged defect in the Pathfinder's rear door.

The main piece of evidence in a product defect claim is the alleged damaged product, which in this case would Widawski's Nissan Pathfinder. It is not enough for a party to simply allege that a product is defective; it must also be examined by experts to determine the source of the defect and whether that defect caused harm to the party. However, in the present case, no experts were able to examine Widawski's vehicle because it was destroyed before they could do so.

Following the rollover accident, Widawski's insurer, Farmers Insurance, handled the preservation of the Pathfinder. Farmers hired LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., a vehicle salvage and storage firm, to store the damaged Nissan and keep it in its current condition. However, LKQ failed to follow these instructions and somehow ended up destroying the Nissan Pathfinder shortly after it arrived. And with its destruction went Gramacki's family's hope of a fair and successful product defect claim against Nissan.

In order to rectify this dilemma, Gramacki's father filed two lawsuits: the first was a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for the allegedly faulty door latch, the second was a spoliation of evidence claim against Farmers for the destroyed Pathfinder. In its claim against Farmers, Gramacki alleged that the "destruction of the subject Nissan Pathfinder deprived Plaintiff of the key piece of evidence necessary to prove an otherwise valid product liability/negligence lawsuit" against Nissan. Farmers then filed a third party lawsuit against LKQ for its role in destroying the Pathfinder.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Owed Duty to Defend Claim for Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Because the Vehicle Loss Was Tangible Property - Universal v. LKQ" »

In law, jurisdiction refers to the right of a court to enter judgment on a particular case. Because different courts must follow different laws, decisions of jurisdiction are extremely important in a case's potential outcome. Take for instance the product liability lawsuit of John Russell v. SNFA, No. 1-09-3012 (2011), in which the trial court dismissed the lawsuit because it felt the court did not have proper jurisdiction over the defendant. Fortunately for the plaintiff, the Illinois Appellate Court felt differently and reversed the lower court's decision, thereby allowing the case to proceed.

The issue in Russell arose out of a 2003 helicopter crash in Illinois. At the time of the crash, the decedent, Michael Russell, was working as a helicopter pilot for Air Angels, a medical airlift service. Russell was the only person in the helicopter at the time and consequently the only victim of the helicopter crash.

Russell's surviving family members filed an Illinois product defect lawsuit against SNFA Group, which manufactured a custom ball bearing that was installed in the helicopter at the time of the crash. The lawsuit alleged that the helicopter crash was caused when one of its tail-rotor drive shaft bearings failed, which in turn caused the drive shaft to fracture, causing the tail rotor to be inoperable. Since SNFA manufactured the drive shaft bearing whose failure allegedly caused the helicopter to spin out of control, the family contended that its negligence was responsible for Russell's death.

Continue reading "Illinois Appeals Court Ruled in Helicopter Crash Case: It Has Jurisdiction Against French Maker of Ball Bearings - Russell v. SNFA" »

The Illinois Appellate Court reviewed the personal injury lawsuit of Anderson v. Anderson, 2011 Ill.App. (1st) 10034 (Sept. 30, 2011), to determine whether or not the trial judge had correctly ordered a new trial. After reviewing the case facts and the jury's decision, the appellate court disagreed with the trial judge and reversed his order for a new trial. As a result, the not guilty verdict entered against the two defendants in Anderson stands.

Anderson arose out of a two-vehicle collision between a mini-van driven by defendant Sean Anderson and a vehicle driven by defendant Frank Fratto. The personal injury claim was filed by the six passengers in Anderson's van at the time of the car accident and was brought against both of the drivers involved in the intersection accident. The personal injury claim alleged that both Anderson and Fratto were at fault for the auto crash and therefore were both responsible for the plaintiffs' injuries.

However, the Illinois jury found in favor of both defendants and failed to find either at fault for the intersection accident. Rather than letting this verdict stand, the trial judge ruled that the verdict was invalid and granted a new trial. When defending his ruling, the judge stated that "the jury’s finding that neither was negligent given the facts of this case is unreasonable and against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury had the discretion of apportioning the fault between the two parties, but a wash of liability is not an option when the injured is not an active participant in the cause of the incident.”

Continue reading "Alternative Liability Rule Applied in Two-Vehicle Collision - Anderson v. Anderson" »

An Illinois Supreme Court ruling in a product liability lawsuit confirms that manufacturers are not required to guard against every risk to the consumer. The verdict in Dora Mae Jablonski v. Ford Motor Company, No. 110096, reversed a $43 million judgment in a 5-0 vote.

Jablonski was filed as a result of a rear-end car accident involving Dora Mae and John Jablonski. The couple was traveling in their 1993 Lincoln Town Car when they were struck by a Chevrolet Lumina that was traveling at 60 mph. The impact of the collision was such that it propelled a pipe wrench laying in the truck of the Jablonski's vehicle through the trunk walls and into the nearby fuel tank. The punctured fuel tank caused the car to catch fire, leaving John Jablonski dead and Dora Mae severely burned.

Dora Mae and her son brought a product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, alleging that it had negligently designed a defective and dangerous fuel tank system in its Lincoln Town Car. According to the plaintiffs' theory of liability, the design of the Town Car's rear fuel tank system left it susceptible to puncture or being damaged during a rear-end collision.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Rules No Negligent Auto Design, Reversing $43 Million Verdict in Jablonski v. Ford Motor" »

In auto accident lawsuits, it is somewhat common for the defendant driver to admit liability, but still dispute the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. However, somewhat less typical is for the defendant driver to dispute the degree to which surviving family members suffer in the event that the plaintiff driver died in the car accident. Yet this is what happened in the McHenry County lawsuit of Estate of Patrick Harder, deceased v. Morgan Nooraee, 08 L 54.

The motorcycle accident at issue in Harder took place on Route 14 in Crystal Lake, Illinois. At the time of the accident, the 44 year-old Patrick Harder was driving his motorcycle along Route 14 when Morgan Nooraee turned his vehicle in front of Harder. The two vehicles collided and Harder was killed on impact.

A wrongful death lawsuit was then filed against Nooraee on behalf of Harder's closest surviving kin, i.e., his eight year-old son. And while Nooraee unequivocally admitted liability for the motorcycle accident and Harder's death, he argued over the extent which Harder's death affected his surviving child. Harder did not live with his son, nor was Harder the primary financial caregiver for his child. Therefore, the defense argued that Harder's son should not be allowed to benefit from his death.

Continue reading "Surviving Kin Receives $614,000 for Mental Suffering Following Father's Death in Motorcycle Accident - Estate of Harder v. Nooraee" »

The Illinois Supreme Court overturned an Appellate Court ruling regarding parents' liability for underage drinking on their premises in Bell v. Hutsell, No. 110724 (May 19, 2011). The Appellate Court had found that the underage hosts' parents were responsible for the death of one of the underage partygoers who drove into a tree after leaving the party intoxicated. However, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the case facts supported a case of true nonfeasance on the part of the parents and as such failed to establish a duty to protect the third party decedent. As a result of the Illinois Supreme Court decision, Bell was dismissed with prejudice.

The original wrongful death complaint alleged that the defendants' son, Jonathan Hutsell, had hosted a party at their home. The 18 year-old decedent, Daniel Bell, attended this party where underage drinking took place; Bell died after he left the Hutsells's party intoxicated and drove into a tree. The Illinois complaint contended that the Hutsells had voluntarily assumed a duty to protect the partygoers, including the decedent; the complaint alleged that this duty was established by the Hutsells' instructions to their son that underage drinking would not be tolerated at the party and that they would be personally monitoring the party to ensure no minors consumed alcohol in their home. The plaintiff's contention regarding this "assumed duty" on the part of the Hutsells that is at issue in this wrongful death case.

However, the complaint further suggested that not only did the Hutsells fail to adequately perform their duty to the decedent, but were also aware that minors were consuming alcohol in their home. Therefore, the plaintiffs contended that the Hutsells had negligently performed their self-imposed duty to prevent underage consumption of alcohol at their son's party. While the defense argued that the plaintiffs had failed to provide adequate proof that the Hutsells had voluntarily undertaken a duty towards the decedent, the Appellate Court decision found that the defense had not provided enough evidence to support this claim and remanded the wrongful death lawsuit to the trial court.

Continue reading "Social Host Liability Decision in Underage Drinking Case Overturned By Illinois Supreme Court - Bell v. Hutsell" »

Construction negligence lawsuits can be somewhat confusing insofar as there are typically several entities involved: the general contractor, the project manager, subcontractor, etc. Oftentimes when plaintiffs file a lawsuit following a construction site injury, there is a lot of finger pointing by the defense, so it is crucial that the plaintiff's attorneys have a clear understanding of who each party is and what their role was on the construction job.

In the construction negligence case of The Estate of John Maggi, etc. v. RAS Development, Inc., No. 1-09-1955, the defendant tried to get the $3.2 million verdict overturned by claiming that the plaintiff had sued the wrong entity. In Maggi, the plaintiff's attorney filed a lawsuit against the construction site's general contractor. In its initial complaint the plaintiff identified the general contractor as RAS Wolfram.

The Chicago construction negligence complaint alleged that as the general contractor, that RAS Wolfram was negligent for its failure to provide a safe workplace and inadequately supervising the work of its subcontractors. The decedent, John Maggi, died after falling three stories through an unprotected window. The fall was prompted after the bundle of bricks Maggi was carrying broke apart, causing him to lose his balance and fall through the open window.

Continue reading "$3.2 Million Verdict in Chicago Construction Death Trial Affirmed by Illinois Appellate Court in Maggi v. RAS Development, Inc." »

In 2007 a propane truck ran a red light and struck another car. The car's passenger, Anthony Villa, Jr., suffered fatal wounds and died two days later. An Illinois wrongful death lawsuit was brought by his wife, which recently settled for $7 million. Cheryl Villa v. Heritage Operating LP, et al., No. 08 L 11922.

The Illinois intersection accident occurred in Matteson, Illinois at the intersection of Harlem Avenue and Lincoln Highway. At the time of the car accident, Villa's vehicle was attempting to make a left turn onto Lincoln Highway when it was struck by a propane truck owned by Heritage Operating LP. While the truck driver was not injured, Villa was rushed to the hospital with severe wounds. He died as a result of these injuries just two days later.

The wrongful death lawsuit was brought by Villa's wife and their five children, two of which were minors at the time of their father's death. The Illinois complaint alleged that the truck driver and his employer were responsible for the truck accident that resulted in Villa's death. The defendants admitted liability for the intersection accident, confirming that it was caused by the truck driver running the red light.

Continue reading "Fatal Truck Accident Results in $7 Million Settlement for Surviving Family Members - Villa v. Heritage Operating Truck Company" »

It's summertime in Chicago and for many that means hot days, no school, and summer camp. Summer camps are a way for children to socialize with their peers, occupy their days, and give mom and dad an occasional break. But what happens when the people we entrust our children to do not protect our children? The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit of Estate of Barnabe Lucas, deceased minor v. Christian Youth Center Ministries, et al., 06 L 29, is a parent's worst nightmare.

In 2004, nine year-old Barnabe Lucas was enrolled in a Will County day camp. Like many summer camps, the Christian Youth Center Ministries day camp included several day trips with its campers, including a weekly trip to a nearby wading pond. The pond was owned and operated by Leisure Lake Membership Resort, who did not provide lifeguards, a fact which it alerted bathers to with a clearly posted sign.

Within 30 minutes of arriving at the pond, a fellow day camper discovered Lucas unconscious in 3.5 to 4 feet of water. The camp director immediately pulled Lucas out of the wading pond and began administering CPR; shortly thereafter Lucas was transported to nearby Provena St. Joseph Hospital. He remained unresponsive on a respirator for four days and was then transferred to University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago for further care. However, just two days after his transfer Lucas died.

Continue reading "Special Needs Child Drowns at Day Camp - $1 Million Jury Verdict in The Estate of Barnabe Lucas, deceased minor v. Christian Youth Center Ministries, et al." »