Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

A recent Illinois jury verdict against a railroad company illustrates the difference between Federal Employee Liability Act (FELA) claims and Illinois workers' compensation claims. The plaintiff was a railroad conductor who suffered severe injuries after being run over by a railroad car while working. As a result of the Illinois train accident the plaintiff required amputations of both his legs.

If the plaintiff had been working for a construction company instead of a railroad company, than his injury would have been handled by the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission (IWCC) and he would have received immediate payments for his injury, medical care, and lost time from work. However, railroad employee injuries are covered under FELA, which puts the burden on the employee to prove that the injury was the result of the railroad's negligence and not the employees.

Similarly, employers whose employees are ruled by Illinois workers' compensation law are exempt from any lawsuits being filed against them by their employees as the result of an injury sustained at work. This protection is granted to those companies because of the assumption that if their employee is injured at work then the company will already be paying them under Illinois workers' compensation rules.

However, under FELA, the railroads do not have to pay the employee anything if the company deems that the injury was a result of the employee's negligence. So while the employee does not automatically receive any compensation from the railroad, the employee is also not barred from filing a lawsuit directly against their railroad employer. So while this Illinois train accident lawsuit was brought by a railroad employee against his railroad employer, Iowa Interstate Railroad, if the plaintiff had not been employed by a railroad he would not have been able to sue his employer.

Continue reading " Illinois Railroad Injury Verdict: FELA Claims Are Different Than Workers' Compensation Claims " »

A recent Illinois workers' compensation decision, Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, No. 107852, 2010 WL 199914 (Ill.Sup.Ct.), examined whether a worker was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits following his termination. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Illinois Appellate Court's decision, thus siding with the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission's assessment.

The facts of the case involved a union carpenter who suffered serious injuries to his head, neck, and back when he fell on his head en route to the hospital after suffering heatstroke on the job. Over the next two years, the Illinois carpenter was unable to return to his normal duties at Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. During this period he fluctuated between not working at all and times of working light duty per his doctor's instructions.

Under Illinois workers' compensation law, the injured worker received TTD workers' compensation benefits from Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. when he was not working at all. Yet when he was working light-duty, the employee was eligible for an Illinois workers' compensation maintenance benefit to account for the difference in his pay as a carpenter and his light-duty wage.

Continue reading " Illinois Temporary Total Disability (TTD) Benefits Reviewed By Illinois Supreme Court: Affirm Illinois Workers Entitled to TTD Benefits Until Condition Stabilizes " »

In Illinois, parties to a lawsuit can file motions in limine in an effort to keep certain information from being brought up at trial. The Illinois Appellate Court recently reviewed an Illinois personal injury case, Ford v. Grizzle, No. 5-08-0185, after the plaintiff claimed the defense received a favorable jury verdict due to the Circuit Court's denial of plaintiff's motion in limine.

The plaintiff's motion in limine sought to prevent evidence being introduced related to plaintiff's two prior traffic accidents and injuries. However, the defense contended that this information was relevant because there was extensive medical evidence demonstrating that the prior injuries were relevant to the plaintiff's current injuries.

The trial court denied plaintiff's motion in limine and the information was allowed at the Illinois personal injury trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, which led to the plaintiff's appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court that the introduction of the evidence regrading the two prior injuries had prejudiced the jury.

Continue reading " Illinois Personal Injury Claim Reviewed By Appellate Court: Uphold Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Keep Out Two Prior Accidents " »

A recent Cook County personal injury settlement highlights the importance of following building codes. The Illinois personal injury claim involves a 34 year-old male who injured his ankle after falling on stairs. The alleged cause of the worker's fall was a non-uniform stair riser.

The stair that the man fell on allegedly measured about two inches higher than all the other stair risers in the relevant stairway. According to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, the rise of all stairs must be uniform:

4.9.2 Treads and Risers. On any given flight of stairs, all steps shall have uniform riser heights and uniform tread widths. Stair treads shall be no less than 11 in (280 mm) wide, measured from riser to riser (see Fig. 18(a)). Open risers are not permitted.

Some cities or townships may have even more detailed requirements regarding stair rise. For example, the Chicago Municipal Code requires that risers not vary in height more than 3/8 inches. Given that the current Illinois personal injury lawsuit involved a variance of almost two inches would qualify as a building code violation under the Chicago Municipal Code.

Continue reading " Cook County Personal Injury Case Highlights Importance of Following Illinois Building Code Requirements " »

In the recently-filed Illinois product liability case of Padilla v. Hunter Douglas Window Coverings, Inc., No. 09-cv-1222 (Jan 19, 2010), the Northern District of Illinois Court reviewed the Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether the plaintiff's complaint set out sufficient claims of liability against the three defendants. While the court ultimately decided that there were sufficient claims for potential negligence and liability on behalf of the defendants, if it had ruled that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient claim then the Illinois product liability claim would have been dismissed.

The review of the complaint in this lawsuit was prompted by the defense filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under the Federal Rule 12(b)(6), the Court examines the Complaint to ensure it satisfies the following requirements:

• provides a clear and concise claim showing that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive relief from the defendants and that the defendants had fair notice of the underlying problem;

• a set of facts that are sufficient to support its arguments of liability on behalf of the defendant(s).

The Illinois product liability lawsuit was filed after the plaintiff's toddler died after becoming entangled in a metal cord at his home's mini blinds. The complaint was direct towards product's manufacturer, Hunter Douglas Window Covering, and two industry trade groups involved in reviewing the safety of the mini blinds in question. Defendant WCMA is a window covering industry trade group responsible for the development and implementation of manufacturing standards. Defendant WCSC is a coalition of window covering manufacturers set up to correct the strangulation hazard posed by window coverings, such as those involved in Padilla.

Continue reading " Illinois Product Liability Claim Underscores the Importance of Filing a Well-Drafted Complaint " »

A recent ruling by an Illinois Appellate Court reviewed whether the 'contact-sports' doctrine applies an independently contracted trainer who has been injured by an amateur sports player. The court overturned a ruling made by a lower court in the Illinois personal injury lawsuit.

The facts of the DuPage County case deal with a hockey trainer who brought an Illinois personal injury claim after sustaining permanent vision loss when he was struck in the eye by an errant hockey puck. The puck had been fired by an amateur hockey player who allegedly was "sniping" at bottles that were lined up on a nearby bench.

The DuPage County judge dismissed the trainer's allegations of willful and wanton conduct on behalf of the player and the amateur team as well as the two counts of negligence against both defendants. In doing so the judge cited that the actions on behalf of the defendants qualified as ordinary carelessness under the Illinois contact-sports doctrine.

However, the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed with the DuPage County judge and reversed the lower court's ruling, stating that the trainer's claim was not barred under the contact-sports doctrine.

Continue reading " Illinois Hockey Trainer’s Negligence Claim Not Barred By ‘Contact-Sports’ Doctrine " »

A recent Cook County personal injury verdict stands out from other Illinois auto accident cases due to its somewhat peculiar case facts. The Illinois personal injury claim was made on behalf of two men injured while sitting at the counter of Gold Coast Dogs, a Chicago-style hot dog chain. The plaintiffs were eating when a SUV crashed into the fast food chain's window, striking the surprised plaintiffs.

As a result of the Illinois auto accident, one of the plaintiffs sustained a fractured ankle that required exploratory surgery and the other Cook County plaintiff suffered a non-displaced fibula fracture.

While it is certainly strange enough when a vehicle crashes into a building, in this Illinois personal injury claim the circumstances get even stranger. The SUV not only crashed through the window of the restaurant, but first crashed through a pedestrian gate as it was exiting a garage and then continued across the street and jumped the curb before crashing into the plaintiffs.

Continue reading " Cook County SUV Crash Results in Illinois Personal Injury Claim on Behalf of Two Restaurant Customers " »

On February 24, 2010, the Public Affairs Committee of the Union League Club of Chicago welcomed the Honorable Edward M. Burke, the dean of the Chicago City Council. Mr. Burke has served as Alderman of Chicago’s 14th Ward for more than four decades. He is a recognized expert of the Chicago’s city budget matters and is Chairman of the City Council Committee on Finance.

The Public Affairs Committee hosted the event to hear Mr. Burke’s comments regarding the Democratic Party’s slate selection of Cook County judges. Mr. Burke stated that of the 11 slated candidates by the Democratic Party, only 7 of them succeeded at the polls. Questions were taken from the audience with respect to the effectiveness of this process and comparison to other court plans and the merit selection of judges. Mr. Burke commented that the election of a downstate Illinois Supreme Court justice accounted for nearly $8 million in campaign spending for the two candidates.

In attendance was Robert Kreisman, a member of the Public Affairs Committee.

Continue reading " Chicago’s Chairman of Council Committee on Finance, Edward M. Burke, Speaks at Union League Club " »

Picking the right daycare center is an important decision for Illinois residents. Entrusting your child in the care of others requires not only careful research on the part of the parents, but also requires a high degree of trust. A recent Illinois wrongful death settlement is an example of a parent's worst nightmare when it comes to daycare.

The recent Illinois settlement was reached between the family of a child and the daycare center where the toddler had been placed at. The settlement was reached after it was determined that the daycare had violated an Illinois law that stated that two daycare workers were required to be in the center's toddler room at all times.

The Illinois wrongful death claim against the daycare comes after the death of the 16-month old toddler after a daycare worker threw the child to the ground. The daycare worker was alleged frustrated because other toddlers in the room were fussing.

Continue reading " Illinois Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Lake County Daycare Center Settled " »

In 1992, an 8th grader at a Chicago Public School broke his neck after hitting his head on a mat while attempting a flip. The incident occurred during an extracurricular lunch activity run by an employee of the Chicago Youth Centers at a Chicago Public School that owned the trampoline. Ten years after the accident, a Cook County Circuit Court Judge granted summary judgment for the defendants. The judge agreed with the defense argument that absolute immunity applied under the Tort Immunity Act. The Tort Immunity Act is to ensure that public entities and employees are not liable to pay damages to an injured third party. According to the Tort Immunity Act, public entities, such as Chicago Public Schools and Chicago Youth Centers, and public employees, such as the Chicago Youth Centers' employee in charge of the extracurricular activity, are not liable for the actions and indiscretions of others. However, if a public employee's actions or lack thereof constitutes willful and wanton conduct, the employee is liable for the injured third party.

Continue reading " Chicago Board Of Education Settles After Court Determines Actions Were Willful and Wanton - A Tort Immunity Exception " »

An Illinois product defect case was reviewed by the Illinois Appellate Court to determine whether the Illinois trial court had erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant transporter company. In Graham v. Bostrom Seating, Inc., et al., No. 5-08-0409, the Illinois Appellate Court evaluated issues of whether the transporting company was involved in the distribution of the defective truck and thereby whether they could be held liable for the Illinois defective product lawsuit.

Graham involves a plaintiff who was injured in an International truck that was equipped with a defective seat. The truck involved in the case was owned by the defendant, Cassens Transport Company. In Graham, the plaintiff alleged that Cassens was liable for the the defective seat under Illinois product liability principles because the company served as a distributor and seller of the truck.

The plaintiff's liability claims revolved around their claims that Cassens “was in a position to make the truck reasonably safe,” and was “aware at all times . . . of the defects and/or potential for injury arising from the placement of the truck in question into the stream of commerce.” The plaintiff further alleged that Cassens profited directly from the truck's sale, or by channeling of savings for profits to its affiliated corporations or its board of directors/stockowners.

Continue reading " Illinois Product Defect Case Reviewed By Illinois Appellate Court: Lower Court Ruling on Product Defect-Chain of Distribution Reversed " »

An Illinois Appellate Court decision upheld a Cook County wrongful death verdict in U.S. Bank v. Lindsey, No. 1-07-2606 (2009). By doing so the Appellate Court discussed liability, specifically the issue of "logo liability" under the Interstate Commerce Act.

In Lindsey, it was alleged that the plaintiff, Willie Taylor, died after a fellow employee backed a truck into Taylor. The case becomes complicated because the truck was rented by their employer, Open Kitchens, from Carmichael Leasing Company.

Even though both workers were employed by Open Kitchens and were operating within the confines of their employment, both the employee who caused Taylor's death and Open Kitchens are insulated from common law liability under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. So while Taylor would have been able to bring an Illinois workers' compensation claim against his employer if he had simply been injured on the job, the fact that he died barred his estate from filing an Illinois workers' compensation claim.

Instead the estate would need to bring an Illinois wrongful death claim that proved that a given entity was responsible for Taylor's death - and under Illinois law that entity could not be the employer or fellow employee. Therefore the administrator of Taylor’s estate brought an action against the leasing company asserting its negligence as the owner of the truck based on “logo liability” under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Continue reading " Cook County Wrongful Death Case Highlights Issues of Logo-Liability Under the Interstate Commerce Act " »

Morris Dees, the co-founder and lawyer of the Southern Poverty Law Center, was honored at the Union League Club of Chicago by the Decalogue Society of Lawyers. The event held on March 2, 2010 at the Union League Club of Chicago was attended by Cook County judges, elected officials and members of the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Union League Club of Chicago and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Decalogue Merit Award was awarded to Mr. Dees for his tireless work in fighting hate groups ranging from the Klu Klux Klan to the White Aryan Resistance. Mr. Dees was responsible for numerous victories against hate groups, including a $6 million judgment that bankrupt the Aryan nations, a $12.5 million jury verdict against the California-based White Aryan Resistance for the death of a black student, and a $26 million verdict against the Carolina Klan for burning black churches.

However, these victories did not come without a price. In 1983, the Klansman burned the Southern Poverty Law Center's offices. And while the arsonists were convicted, their leader almost successfully fulfilled a plot to kill Mr. Dees. Over the years, more than 30 men have been imprisoned for plots to harm Morris Dees or destroy the Southern Poverty Law Center property. This continued threat requires a high degree of security during public appearances.

Continue reading " Fighting Hate Since 1970: Morris Dees is Honored by Chicago’s Decalogue Society of Lawyers " »

An Illinois prescription drug case that originally had been dismissed due to issues of federal preemption, has been reinstated by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. This case, Mason v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a Glaxo SmithKline, No. 08-2265,___F.3d___, 2010 WL 605922 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2010) may be the first decision that addresses preemption with respect to prescription drugs.

The original Illinois prescription drug lawsuit was brought by the parents of 23 year-old Tricia Mason after she committed suicide just two days after being started on the prescription drug Paxil. The Illinois prescription drug lawsuit alleged that Paxil increases the risk in suicide in children and young adult, which the manufacturer should have known and therefore had a duty to warn its users.

The lawsuit alleged that GSK violated Illinois law by choosing not to warn Tricia Mason on its label that Paxil increases the risk of suicide for children and young adults. Two years after the decedent's suicide, Paxil added a label warning of an increased risk of suicide among children taking the drug.

Continue reading " Wyeth v. Levine Used to Reverse Pre-Emption of Chicago Pharmaceutical Litigation Case Against Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) " »