Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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