Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Typically Illinois courts reward and protect an injured party. For example, if one party is negligent because they ran into a stopped car at a red light, then the injured driver would normally prevail at trial. But this is not the case when the negligent driver was part of an 'unavoidable accident'.

A recent Illinois trucking accident case ruled in favor of the defendant truck driver on summary judgment (Coole v. Central Area Recycling, 2008 WL 2955543 (4th Dist., July 28)) . The facts of the case were such that the court determined there was an 'unavoidable accident' so the defendant was not at fault.

In Coole, the truck driver was driving 5 mph over the speed limit as he approached an intersection; there was no stop light or stop signs controlling his movement. At the same time the plaintiff was also approaching the same intersection. She had a stop sign, but rolled through it and was struck by the defendant truck driver who was going over the legal speed limit. The truck driver contended that he didn't have time to stop or avoid the broadside collision with Coole's vehicle. Coole died as a result of the collision and her father brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the truck driver.

Continue reading "Illinois Truck Accident: Driver Cleared In 'Unavoidable Accident'" »

Posted by Robert Kreisman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Trucking Accidents

Bookmark:

In Illinois and most other states when an automobile owner permits another person drive their car then the driver's negligence can be assigned to the vehicle's owner.

For example, consider a Missouri case of Sam and his aunt Sandra [Back v. Winfield-Fire Protection Dist., No. SC 89001 (Mo. banc 2008)]. Sandra owns an automobile, but does not have a driving license, whereas her nephew, Sam, does. So when Sandra needs to go to a meeting she recruits Sam to drive her. On the way to her meeting Sam rear ended a fire truck that was partially parked in his lane with its emergency lights on.

As a result of the crash, his aunt was injured, and consequently sued her nephew and the fire protection district for negligence. Her nephew was dismissed after settling out of court with his aunt for $25,000. The case against the fire department continued on to trial, where the jury awarded $100,000 for her suffering. But because the jury found her to be 50% at fault in the accident, with the district also being 50% at fault, her damages were reduced by half.

The aunt appealed the reduction of her award by arguing that the trial court should not have instructed the jury that she could be held at fault because her nephew was negligent when he failed to keep a proper lookout. She felt that because she was a passenger she did not have a right to control it even though she owned the car.

Continue reading "Illinois Automobile Owner Responsible for Authorized Driver's Negligence" »

Posted by Robert Kreisman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Trucking Accidents

Bookmark:

Chicago U.S. District Court Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago, dismissing the case brought against two Chicago police officers who ran over two young Chicago children. When it hit the children the officers' unmarked car was driving at high speed with no lights or flashers.

The suit claimed that the City of Chicago and its two officers violated the children's right to substantive due process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The issue before the court was whether an auto accident caused by reckless driving forms the basis for constitutional liability under the substantive due process clause.

According to Judge Hibbler, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that recklessness in such a situation is not enough. The rule of thumb for establishing the threshold in a substantive due process challenge comes for the ruling in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998): whether the behavior "is so egregious, so outrageous that it may fairly be said to shock the conscience."

Under Hill v. Shobe, 93 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 1996), it was held that reckless driving alone was not enough cause to impose liability under the due process clause. Furthermore, Lewis ruled that a high speed chase without the intention of causing harm does not meet the level of shocking one's conscience.

Judge Hiller further reviewed the facts of the current case to determine whether the two police officers had intended to harm the two children. Evidence supported that the officer driving was indeed reckless when he struck the children. At the time the officers were speeding down the wrong side of the street with neither their lights or sirens on in an area near a school zone. According to the officers they were chasing a man with a gun. Yet Hiller felt that there was evidence to support the victims' family's claim that the officers were in fact avoiding traffic and there was no man with a gun. One of the boys struck by the police officers died, the other survived.

But while there was ample evidence to support the officers' reckless behavior, there was no evidence that they had intended to harm the two children. Therefore Hiller reluctantly ruled in favor of the City of Chicago's summary judgment and dismissed the case. However, Hiller did recommend to the family that they appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago for further review of the due process claim. That perhaps the Appeals Court would review whether the recklessness shown in the present case would be enough to shock the conscious and thereby violate the substantive due process clause.

Continue reading "Chicago Not Liable For Fatal Crash Involving Two Children Struck By Chicago Police In Unmarked Car" »

Posted by Robert Kreisman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Personal Injury , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

The parents of 8-month-old Joshua Flax filed suit against DaimlerChrysler after their son was killed in a car accident involving their 1998 Dodge Caravan. The wrongful death case centered on the allegedly defective design of the minivan's front seat backs. Jeremy Flax, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., et al.

Joshua Flax was in the back seat of the minivan when it was rear-ended. The impact caused the front seat to collapse and its passenger to strike Joshua in the head, fracturing his skull. No other passengers were seriously injured and all parties agreed that Joshua was only fatally injured because of the collapsed seat.

In late 2004, a jury found DaimlerChrysler's seats to be defective and unreasonably dangerous, awarding a total of $105,500,000 to Joshua's parents. This amount was later reduced, but the verdict was upheld all the way through the Supreme Court.

Evidence showed that the seat in question had been failing crash tests for over 20 years. Since the '80's Chrysler had been getting complaints that the seats were collapsing and injuring children. In fact, a former employee testified that he had investigated the seats in the '90's because of all the complaints. He was fired after expressing that he wanted to bring the issue to federal regulators.

In its opinion the Supreme Court stated that the evidence showed that not only had Chrysler ignored customer's warnings and failed to redesign their minivan, but they also hid the evidence. In addition, they marketed their minivan as a vehicle that put safety first.

The minivan has been a symbol of modern American families. When Joshua Flax's family strapped his car seat in they felt confident in the safety of their minivan. But they found out all too soon the error in their perception was from the deception by Chrysler.

Continue reading "Collapsed Seat In Dodge Caravan Found Unsafe and Cause for Infant's Death" »

Posted by Robert Kreisman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Product Defects , Product Liability , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

NASCAR driver Michael McDowell walked away from a violent rollover crash during a race at the Texas Motor Speedway earlier this year. After skidding into a wall and flipping across the track several times he climbed out of his crashed vehicle unhurt. This complete lack of injury is unimaginable in your typical car, but NASCAR vehicles come equipped with roll bars to prevent roof crush in rollover crashes.

Unfortunately your typical street car doesn't come equipped with as stringent safety standards as those enforced by NASCAR. Currently the roof crush standard in the United States requires that the roof must be able to withstand pressure of at least 1.5 times the vehicle's weight. This is the same standard which was established in 1973 and has remained unchanged since its inception. In 2005 Congress proposed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) upgrade its standards in an effort to reduce injuries and fatalities from rollover crashes.

Recently NHTSA came to Congress with a proposal for increasing the weight ratio to 2.5. The minimal increase has drawn a lot of controversy with its opponents calling the increase ineffective. In 2007, over 10,000 people died in rollover crashes. In Illinois there were over 5,000 rollover accidents in just 2006. Yet the NHTSA estimates that its proposed increase would only result in 13 to 44 fewer rollover fatalities a year. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) stated, "If we have a little increase in roof strength that doesn't result in a major decrease in injuries and fatalities, we've done nothing."

And while the ratio change is minimal and drawn criticism as being ineffective there is another controversy surrounding the bill. Possibly worse yet the NHTSA proposal has a throw in; the agency inserted language which would preempt accident victims from suing any manufacturer who met the minimum standard.

Continue reading "NHTSA's Roof Crush Standard: Opponents Decry as Ineffective and a Smokescreen for Stripping Consumer's Legal Rights" »

Posted by Robert Kreisman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Product Defects , Product Liability

Bookmark:

The $2.5 Million verdict handed down by a Cook County jury last week was not only the largest in Cook County for a person 90 years or older, but now stands as the largest in Illinois for anyone of that age group that has been injured or killed.

Ms. Grochis was struck by a car crossing the street at Grand Avenue and 73rd Street in Elmwood Park, IL. Because she survived after being dragged 25 feet by the defendant's car, she was awarded $1 Million for pain and suffering. The jury also awarded an additional $1.5 million for the wrongful death of Ms. Grochis, who lived independently, still handling her own shopping and errands, and used public transportation to get around. She was survived by two children ages 56 and 52, along with several grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

This Cook County verdict is reflective of a change in jury attitudes. There had been a tendency among jurors to perhaps discount or hold down the verdict to much lower levels because of the advanced years of the plaintiff. Typically when there has been either advanced years or a perceived life expectancy reduction the verdicts are on a significantly lower scale then the Grochis verdict.

The prior record for a verdict or settlement awarded to the surviving family of a person aged 90 or above was a $825,000 settlement in 1999. The jump between the '99 case and the Grochis verdict reflects that juries are now evaluating cases irrespective of the age of a plaintiff. This changing outlook will influence the way elderly plaintiff's cases are worked up and tried.

Continue reading "Car Accident Pedestrian Death Leads to Cook County Jury Verdict of $2.5 Million- Largest Verdict For Death of 90+ Year Old" »

Posted by Robert Kreisman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Illinois Legislation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark: