Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

Biking in Chicago is a great way to get around town, avoid rush hour traffic jams, and get some exercise while reducing emissions. However, Chicago bikers are also at risk from the heavy traffic and congested roads. There has been a push by Chicago’s new mayor to create safer bike lanes and improve the quality of biking in Chicago. The personal injury lawsuit of Cameron Esposito v. Maria Sims, 07 L 13136, demonstrates why these measures are important.

In 2007, 26 year-old Cameron Esposito was riding her bike down Chicago’s busy Milwaukee Avenue. At the time, she was biking in one of Chicago’s designated bicycle lanes, a painted area that generally runs between the roadway traffic and parked cars on the street. As she was nearing the intersection of Milwaukee and Halsted, Maria Sims was driving her car out of a car wash and pulled out in front of Esposito.

Esposito was unable to swerve out of the way and ran right into Sims’s vehicle. As a result of the Chicago bike accident, Esposito suffered contusions on her right and left knees and hit her chin on Sims’s windshield. In addition, Esposito later reported experiencing sciatic nerve pain radiating from her back down her legs. The long-term effects of the Chicago bike accident ended up being the largest factor in the jury’s verdict, making up $62,767 of the total $100,000 award. The remainder of the award was comprised of $20,000 for past pain and suffering, $16,358 for past medical expenses, $500 for property damage to the bicycle, and $375 for lost time from work.

Continue reading

by

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

by

An Illinois plaintiff’s request for a new trial was recently affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court. The appellate court held that a new trial was necessary because the defense attorney had made too many statements in closing argument thought to be prejudicial to the jury. The court ruled that the defendant’s lawyer’s argument crossed the line of fairness and affirmed the grant of a new trial in Michael Lynn v. James L. Miller, No. 1-10-2799.

The original Cook County trial involved the personal injury case filed by the plaintiff Michael Lynn. In 2006, Lynn had been standing at the Chicago intersection of Wentworth Avenue and 33rd Street when he was hit by a car driven by defendant James Miller. In his complaint, Lynn alleged that Miller was driving at unreasonable speeds and had failed to keep a proper lookout, warn Lynn that he was approaching, or keep his car under control.

However, Miller denied that he was negligent or in any way responsible for the Chicago pedestrian accident. Instead, Miller pointed to a bicyclist as the sole proximate cause for the accident. As Miller was approaching the intersection where Lynn was standing, Ional Pusca was riding his bicycle through the intersection. Miller had to swerve to avoid hitting Pusca, which in turn caused Miller to hit Lynn. Given these circumstances Miller contended that it was Pusca and not himself who was responsible for the collision with Lynn.

Continue reading

by

At the end of a personal injury trial, juries must not only decide who is responsible for the injury, but also assign a specific degree of fault to that party. For example, if a jury finds a general contractor is responsible for a construction worker’s injuries on a job site, then the jury must also specify the degree which it feels the general contractor was responsible, e.g., 60 percent, 70 percent, 75 percent, etc. The purpose of doing so is that if the jury finds the plaintiff was over 50 percent responsible for his or her own injury, then the defendant does not have to pay any damages.

The Chicago personal injury lawsuit of Harry Vasiliadis v. Joseph Cortese, 08 L 10080, is unique in that the jury found both parties to be equally responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. As a result, the parties needed to share the burden of paying for the damages sustained as a result of the intersection accident. The jury determined those damages to be $74,899; the defendant driver was only responsible for paying 50 percent, or $37,449. In Illinois, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50 percent at fault, then he or she can receive no damages.

The facts surrounding Vasiliadis dealt with a 2008 intersection accident involving the plaintiff bicyclist and the defendant driver. Vasiliadis was riding his bicycle down a one-way street in the opposite flow of traffic. As Vasiliadis entered the Chicago intersection of Cuyler Ave. and Lockwood Ave., he was hit by Cortese’s vehicle. Vasiliadis sustained a cervical spine fracture, which resulted in over $35,000 in medical bills.

Continue reading

by

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

by

The City of Chicago is responsible for inspecting Chicago buildings and residences and making sure they are up to code. However, if a building owner is cited for code violations, there is only so much the City can do to persuade the building owner to maintain a safe environment. At some point, it becomes the building owner’s responsibility to safely maintain the property for tenants and visitors.

The Chicago personal injury lawsuit of James Doyle, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Doyle, deceased, v. Kendard Management Corporation, 07 L 1988, is an extreme example of what happens if a building owner elects not to follow the City of Chicago’s recommendations. The lawsuit was filed after 25 year-old Michael Doyle fell through the railings of a third-story porch. The case alleged that the building’s management company knew that the porch was unsafe, but failed to notify its residents or take timely actions to improve the safety of the building’s porches.

Doyle had been attending a friend’s New Year’s Eye party at 3180 N. Clark St. in Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood. According to eyewitness testimony, Doyle had been sitting in a chair with his back to the porch’s rails and was either attempting to stand or move his chair at the time of the porch accident. However, the legs of his chair became stuck in the porch floor’s slats, causing Doyle to slip and fall head first through the large gap in the porch’s railings. Doyle was immediately transported to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, but was pronounced dead on New Year’s Day.

Continue reading

by

There is the old adage that practice makes perfect, a concept that is easily applied to driving ability. In general, the longer a driver has been driving, the better he or she is at it. This is why teenage drivers are required to log practice hours before being eligible for their license and also why insurance rates are so high for young drivers. With more driving experience comes better judgment and skills.

The Illinois personal injury lawsuit of Lewandowski v. Butler, 08 L 5450, illustrates the idea that newer drivers lack some of the knowledge and skill that comes with more experience. The defendant driver was 17 years-old at the time of the relevant car accident. The auto accident took place at the intersection of Jackson St. and River Road in East Dundee, where the teenage driver hit the plaintiff’s vehicle.

The teenage defendant was attempting to cross River Road and stopped at the stop sign as appropriate. He then continued through a line of stopped vehicles in the southbound lanes, at which point his view of the northbound traffic was obstructed by a large semi-truck. As the plaintiff was driving northbound on River Road, the defendant pulled out into her lane of traffic, resulting in the two-vehicle crash. As a result of the intersection accident, the plaintiff driver sustained severe back injuries, including exacerbation of her pre-existing herniated cervical disc injuries.

Continue reading

by

Summertime in Chicago is synonymous with construction – every Chicago resident is familiar with the site of orange cones, torn up pavement, and workers flagging cars through the construction zone. And while construction season means longer commutes for Chicagoans and increased traffic delays, it also means risker job conditions for many construction workers and more construction site injuries. The Chicago personal injury lawsuit of Donald Martinelli and Annette Martinelli v. City of Chicago, 06 L 11846, is an example of the dangers of construction work.

In 2002, 52 year-old Donald Martinelli and his co-worker were marking the location of underground telephone cables at a street construction project. While Martinelli and his coworker were SBC Communications employees, the construction site was run and managed by the City of Chicago. Martinelli was marking the cables’ locations at the City’s request.

At the same time this was happening, Oscar Soto was driving his car through the road construction site. When Soto realized the City of Chicago’s construction equipment was blocking his lane of traffic, he made a decision to veer into the oncoming lane of traffic. However, Soto was eventually forced back into his lane by an oncoming vehicle, causing him to run into one of the SBC vans parked on the side of the road.

At the time of the Chicago car accident, Martinelli had finished marking the cable lines and was standing at the back of his SBC van. Martinelli became pinned against the back of his van and suffered a traumatic amputation of his left leg. The above the knee amputation required future medical expenses and resulted in lost wages due to Martinelli’s inability to perform the same type of job duties. Martinelli brought a personal injury claim against Soto and the City of Chicago for the loss of his leg and livelihood, while his wife brought a loss of consortium claim against both parties for the loss of companionship and household assistance.

Continue reading

by

In Illinois and Chicago, there are laws against talking on your cell phone while driving. The purpose of these laws is to eliminate a potential distraction to driving in an effort to increase driving safety and avoid preventable auto accidents. However, as is the case with any law, there are those who choose not to abide by the Illinois cell phone driving laws. The Illinois personal injury case Susan Budd v. Lynn Kelso, 06 L 11272, resulted from an auto accident where the defendant driver was talking on her cell phone.

In October 2004, Lynn Kelso was nearing the Willmette intersection of Ridge Road and Lake Avenue; she was talking on her cell phone at the time. Kelso proceded to drive her car into the busy intersection even though she didn’t have the right of way. At the same time, plaintiff Susan Budd had a green light and as such had begun to drive through the intersection. As Kelso ran the a red light, Budd was forced to come to a sudden stop. While Budd’s quick thinking prevented her from driving into Kelso’s vehicle, it also caused the vehicle immediately behind Budd to rear-end Budd’s vehicle. The rear-impact then forced Budd’s vehicle forward, causing her to hit Kelso’s car.

The 51 year-old Budd sustained lower back injuries as a result of the Cook County intersection accident. The rear-end impact aggravated plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative disc disease and resulted in a lumbar disc protrusion. Budd underwent extensive physical therapy and eventually elected to have steroid injections into her epidural region in an attempt to relieve the pain.

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