Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

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

by

The Winnebago County personal injury lawsuit of Candice Martlett and Jonathan Martlett, a minor v. Jennifer Fuller, 09 L 68, is yet another example of a defendant driver admitting liability for a car accident, but denying the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. However, despite the defendant driver’s denial of the plaintiff’s injuries, the Illinois jury returned a $98,000 verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

The car accident took place in a Winnebago County intersection. Twenty-seven year-old Candice Martlett was driving with her young son, Jonathan. Martlett had stopped at a red light, but then proceeded to drive northbound through the intersection when the light turned green. As Marlett entered the intersection, eighteen year-old Jennifer Fuller was driving westbound through the same intersection.

Fuller hit Marlett’s vehicle, causing the intersection car accident. Following the car crash, Candice Marlett suffered from knee and back pain; her son was fortunate enough to only suffer from some bruises. Marlett’s knee pain continued for some time following the accident and was eventually diagnosed as a knee contusion with scarring under the fat pad of her patella, or knee cap. Marlett underwent cortisone injections and physical therapy, but eventually required arthroscopic surgery to repair her knee injury. In addition to the medical bills Marlett accrued following the car accident, she was also forced to miss a year of work as a certified nurse’s assistant.

Continue reading

by

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

by

Most car accidents are fender-benders, i.e., they result in some property damage to the vehicle and fairly mild injuries to passengers. This is because many accidents take place at slower speeds, e.g., when a vehicle is slowing down, or speeding up from a stop. However, the faster a car is going, the greater the risk for injury. This is why highway accidents are often much more tragic than intersection accidents.

Yet drivers to not need to be traveling in excess of 55 mph in order to do severe damage. In the Illinois personal injury case of Christopher Clark v. Creed D. Tucker, 07 L 96 (Champaign County), a driver rear-ended another car while driving 40 mph. The force of the impact caused the the first car to propel not one, but two more cars forward, making it not just a two-car accident, but a four-car accident.

The car at fault for the rear-end accident was being driven by 81 year-old Creed Tucker, a retired judge from the Champaign County district. The first driver he hit was 16 year-old Christopher Clark, whose car was completely totaled as a result of the multiple car accident. The force of the impact pushed Clark’s car forward into the next car, which then pushed into the car in front of that. Clark filed a personal injury lawsuit against the former judge in an effort to recover damages for the injuries Clark sustained following the car crash.

Continue reading

by

Whenever a party enters into a contract with another party, he/she is agreeing to the terms and conditions set out in that contract. However, the assumption is that if one of the party fails to abide by the terms of the contract, that the other party may terminate the contract. Yet in order to justifiably terminate the contract and incur not penalties there needs to be a valid breach of contract. Whether or not there was in fact a breach of contract was the subject of the Chicago case of Paper Recovery, Inc. v. Segerdahl Corp., Segerdahl Graphics Inc., Marcells Paper & Metal Inc., 07L-3762.

The case centered on the written contracts between Paper Recovery, Inc. and Segerdahl Corporation and Segerdahl Graphics. Segerdahl had contracted Paper Recovery to dispose of its paper waste products. Under the terms of this contract, Paper Recovery would act as the go-between for Segerdahl and paper recycling plants.

Paper disposal companies, such as Paper Recovery, collect and separate the various types of paper waste and then make their money by selling that paper to recycling plants. The amount the recycling plants pay for the different types of paper depends on the paper’s grade, which refers to the quality of the paper product. For example, cardboard yields more per recycled ton than newspapers; therefore, recycling plants will pay more for cardboard than newspapers.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois personal injury lawsuit evaluated the degree of duty a railroad owes to protect trespassers from becoming injured on its property. Dominic Choate v. Indiana Harbor Belt RR Co., et al., No. 1-10-0209 (June 2011), was filed after a 12 year-old boy required a leg amputation after falling from a moving freight train. A Cook County jury found the railroad negligence and awarded the boy $6.5 million for his injuries; an Illinois appellate court then affirmed the verdict after reviewing the case facts.

In July 2003, Dominic Choate was heading home from a friend’s house when he decided to take a shortcut that required him to cross some train tracks. As he approached the train tracks, a freight train was driving by at about 9 to 10 mph. Choate decided to climb a ladder on the side of one of the passing freight cars, but fell from the moving train. The train then ran over his left foot, causing a below the knee amputation as a result of the train accident.

Choate filed a lawsuit against Indiana Harbor Belt RR Co. (IHB), the railroad company that owned the right-of-way where Choate had attempted to board the train. The complaint alleged that IHB was aware that children were regularly crossing the train tracks at that location and failed to take steps to defer children from trespassing and crossing at that location. The plaintiff was critical of the railroad’s failure to warn children of the tracks’ danger and that it did not fence in its property or otherwise prevent children from trespassing.

The defense responded by stating that it did not have a duty to prevent Choate from trespassing and that he was old enough to be aware of the dangers of train tracks. While the jury did find Choate partly responsible for his own injury, it still found that 60% of the fault lay with IHB. It entered a $6.5 million verdict against the railroad company, which was then reduced to $3.9 million after allowing for Choate’s contributory negligence.

Continue reading

by

In law, if you don’t agree with a lower court’s ruling, you have the option of appealing your case to a higher court. However, just because you file an appeal does not mean you will be happy with the outcome. In the product liability lawsuit of David Show, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Nos. 10-2428 and 10-2637, the trial court had entered a summary judgment that effectively dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which in turn declined to review the product liability lawsuit.

The lawsuit sprung from an Illinois rollover accident in which the two plaintiffs, David Show and Maria Federici, were injured. At the time of the auto accident, the two plaintiffs were riding in a 1993 Ford Explorer, which rolled over after being struck by another vehicle. The plaintiffs both suffered personal injuries as a result of the rollover accident and subsequently brought an Illinois product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for its supposed negligence in designing its Ford Explorer.

The basis of the plaintiffs’ claim was that Ford had chosen to defectively design and produce their Explorer, making it an unsafe vehicle for consumers. In order to show that the SUV was unsafe, the plaintiffs offered up the fact that it had rolled over in their accident and was therefore unsafe. They testified that as consumers they would have expected the car to not rollover in an accident.

Continue reading

by

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

by

People get into routines when they drive. For example, some drivers go into autopilot as they commute to and from work, following the same route and never diverging from it. Other drivers go with the flow of traffic and might not be aware of the speed they’re driving at. However, regardless of the routine you get into, most drivers are always aware of the color a light is as they approach an intersection. Yet in the case of Charles Comer v. United Quick Transportation, Inc. and Martrell Parker, 09 L 12120, both drivers involved in an intersection accident claimed to have the green light.

The accident occurred in June 2008, at the intersection of Kostner Ave. and 16th Street in Chicago between two buses. Charles Comer was driving a CTA bus along 16th Street, while Martrell Parker was driving a school bus along Kostner Ave. Both bus drivers entered the intersection, both drivers claimed to have green lights, and both drivers claimed to have been hit by the other bus driver.

While Parker’s injuries were relatively minor, Comer suffered from knee, neck, and back injuries. The damage to his right knee was so severe that he required surgery in order to correct his medical problems. In addition, Comer’s medical condition caused him to miss one year of work as a CTA bus driver. As a result, Comer filed a personal injury lawsuit against Parker and his school bus company employer in an attempt to recover for the damages he sustained in the Chicago bus accident.

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