Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

In a case of police brutality, the City Council of Chicago will pay a $525,000 settlement to the family of an autistic boy. Oscar Guzman, a minor, was chased and clubbed by police in a case of mistaken identity. The family sued the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police officers for the physical and mental anguish Oscar sustained.

In 2009, Oscar was watching pigeons in front of his family's Little Village restaurant when two police officers approached him. According to the police, Oscar matched the description of a suspect they were looking for. When he was unable to answer questions and retreated into the family's restaurant, the police officers chased him. According to one of the officers, Oscar reached towards his wristband and he walked away, which led them to suspect that he had a gun.

Inside the restaurant, Oscar's parents tried to explain that Oscar had special needs, that he was autistic, and pleaded with the officers to leave him alone. The officers pushed Oscar's father out of the way and ignored Oscar's cries that he was "a special boy." Oscar was hit on the head with a retractable club and sustained a four-centimeter laceration to his head. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance and received stitches.

Continue reading "City of Chicago to Pay $525,000 to Settle Police Abuse of Autistic Boy" »

When completing a business contract, it is important to make sure that you satisfy all the requirements as stated. Even if someone verbally tells you to waive one of the requirements, in the end you might be the one who loses out. Take for example the case of Michael Downs, et al. v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, et al., No. 1-09-0970 and 1-09-2091 (Consolidated) (December 16, 2011). The plaintiff, Michael Downs, lost out on an interest at his former company because he failed to comply with the contract's requirements.

Downs was hired by Rosenthal Collins Group (RCG) in 1997 as its CEO. His starting annual salary was $350,000. In addition, Downs's employment contract offered the option to purchase a 2.5% limited partnership interest at "book value." In order to exercise his purchasing right, Downs needed to sign a promissory note. However, for one reason or another, Downs failed to do so.

A year after Downs was hired, RCG reorganized as an LLC, at which point a distinction was made according to the different classifications of owners. Under this new classification, Class A owners were majority owners and managing members, while Class C owners were those owning less than 1/10 of 1% of the company. From 1999 to 2002, Downs began receiving compensation above and over his annual salary based on his additional responsibilities. This additional compensation amounted to 2.5% of the company's net profits, or a 6.5% distribution.

In 2004, Downs was fired from RCG. Downs then sued the company for breach of contract in which he alleged that he owned a 6.5% share of RCG. However, the trial court found that Downs only owned a 2.5% of the corporation, a finding that RCG contested. Both parties appealed the court's decision in the commercial litigation lawsuit; Downs on the basis that he owned more and RCG on the basis that he owned nothing.

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Holds That Express Terms in Employment Contract Not Waived - Downs v. Rosenthal Collins Group" »

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 "Insurance Company Owed Duty to Defend Claim for Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Because the Vehicle Loss Was Tangible Property - Universal v. LKQ" »

Cell phones have made it easier for people to stay connected and to access data while on the go. However, cell phones can cause car accidents, whether the driver is using them to talk or to text. And while many states, including Illinois, have passed bans on the use of cell phones while driving, doing so has not been able to halt the use of cell phones while driving.

Consequently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is looking for other strategies to halt the use of cell phones while driving. Last week it suggested that insurance companies could help limit this widespread problem if they simply refused to pay out for accident claims caused by drivers texting or talking on their cell phones.

And while the NTSB's idea makes sense and even seems like it could work, insurance companies are not jumping on board. To explain their reluctance to adopt the NTSB's suggestions, insurance companies explained that one of the main reasons to have insurance is that insurance companies will cover the cost of injuries even if the auto accident is caused by careless or even reckless behavior. And as an insurance specialist and spokesperson for the Consumer Federation of America said, “An accident is an accident.”

Continue reading "Texting, Driving, and Causing Accidents is Still Insured" »

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 "Illinois Appeals Court Ruled in Helicopter Crash Case: It Has Jurisdiction Against French Maker of Ball Bearings - Russell v. SNFA" »

It is common knowledge that insurance companies tend to drag their feet when it comes to paying out on insurance policies. Therefore, there are laws in place to prevent insurance companies from acting in bad faith and requiring them to uphold their end of the bargain. However, in the lawsuit of Kevin Pryor v. United Equitable Insurance Company, No. 1-11-0544 (2011), the appellate court found that the insurance company had actually not acted in bad faith. Rather, it was the insured client who had jumped the gun and filed an unnecessary lawsuit.

The case arose out of a claim the plaintiff, Kevin Pryor, filed after being involved in a 2009 car crash. While Pryor had car insurance, the other driver did not. Therefore, Pryor filed an uninsured motorist claim with his own insurance company, United Equitable Insurance Company.

On January 21, 2010, Pryor entered into a binding arbitration agreement with United Equitable for an award of $9,775. On January 27, 2010, Pryor signed a release and trust agreement regarding that award. On February 5, 2010, Pryor signed a release of the physician's lien, thereby completing his part of the arbitration agreement. United Equitable was to pay out Pryor's award within 30 days of receiving his release. However, when it had still failed to pay out by March 2, 2010, Pryor brought an insurance malpractice lawsuit against United Equitable.

Continue reading "No Bad Faith for Insurance Company’s Delay in Payment to Insured - Pryor v. United Equitable Insurance Company" »

In a high-risk industry like construction, following correct safety procedures is extremely important. An unsafe work site may not only lead to a construction worker injuring themselves, but could also cause injuries to others. When construction workers cut corners on safety it can have dangerous consequences.

Take for instance the Indiana construction case of John Mazzorana v. Emil Perrotta Co., Inc., 06 L 12451. The 33 year-old plaintiff, John Mazzorana, fell 30 feet after stepping onto an unsupported walking plank. As a result of the fall, Mazzorana ruptured his Achilles tendon and a tendon in his foot and sustained fractures to his left heel and spine.

At the time of the 2006 construction injury, Mazzorana had been working as a bricklayer on the Coffee Creek Center construction project in Chesterton, Indiana. Mazzorana and his fellow bricklayers began work on the project at 7:00 a.m. That same morning, carpenters from Emil Perrotta Co. were also working on the construction project and borrowed some of the bricklayers' scaffolding to assist their work. However, after the carpenters were done, they left an unsupported walking plank in place.

It was this unsupported walking plank that Mazzorana stepped out onto as he returned to work. The unsupported plank gave way, causing Mazzorana to fall 30 feet to the ground. The severity of his injuries required Mazzorana to undergo surgery; however, he still has hardware in his foot. It has been over five years since his construction site injury, yet Mazzorana is still unable to return to work as a bricklayer.

Continue reading "$8 Million Jury Verdict for Bricklayer Who Fell 30 Feet at Construction Site - Mazzorana v. Emil Perrotta Co." »

It is fairly common for companies to include a non-compete clause in their employee documents, which generally prohibits individuals from competing against the company during the course of their employment. However, this does not prevent some employees from violating these covenants not to compete. The recent Illinois Supreme Court case of Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 IL 111871, clarifies the legal analysis regarding violations of non-compete clauses.

Reliable Fire Equipment is an Illinois company that sells, installs, and services fire prevention and alarm systems. The defendant, Rene Garcia, began working for Reliable in 1992, at which time he signed a covenant not to compete as part of his employee agreement. The co-defendant, Arnold Arredondo, signed a similar agreement when he began working for Reliable in 1998. Under this agreement, both employees agreed not to compete with Reliable both for the duration of their employment and one year following their termination. The covenant further specified that employees were specifically prohibited from competing in Illinois and the surrounding bordering states of Indiana and Wisconsin.

The business litigation issue in Reliable arose under claims that both defendants violated this agreement during the course of their employment. While still working for Reliable, Arrendondo founded High Rise Security Systems, LLC, a company dedicated to selling fire alarm systems in the Chicagoland area. Soon thereafter, Garcia signed an operating agreement with High Rise; he was also still employed by Reliable.

Continue reading "Illinois Supreme Court Settles Employment Covenants Not to Compete Debate: Refutes Marginalization of the Legitimate Business Interest Prong" »

An Illinois jury evaluated a bicycle accident lawsuit to determine not only whether the defendant driver was liable, but also whether her employer was liable in Cedric Bacon v. City of Joliet, Sgt. Cordelia Dunn , 08L-859. The personal injury lawsuit arose out of a bicycle accident in which the defendant, Sgt. Cordelia Dunn, struck the plaintiff's bicycle while driving 50 mph through an intersection. Sgt. Dunn was responding to a call under her duty as a Joliet Police Officer, thereby making her employer, the Joliet Police Department, liable as well.

Cedric Bacon, the injured bicyclist who brought the personal injury claim against Sgt. Dunn for the injuries he sustained from the Joliet bicycle accident. Bacon required an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) surgery to repair the broken bones in his right leg; the breaks were so severe that the surgeons needed to place screws and plates to try to stabilize the bones. Despite the surgery, injuries to the surrounding artery and nerves caused Bacon to develop a severe foot drop. In addition, Bacon suffered a severe brain injury and developed subsequent anxiety.

At the personal injury trial, the bulk of the testimony centered on what happened at the intersection accident and whether Sgt. Dunn was acting within the scope of her employment. In an unusual turn of events, Sgt. Dunn refused to testify for her discovery deposition. As a result, the judge barred her from testifying at trial, forcing the defense to find an alternative way to represent Dunn's versions of the events. To do so, the City of Joliet hired two accident reconstruction experts to reconstruct the intersection accident and testify before the jury at trial.

Continue reading "Joliet Squad Car Hits Bicyclist at High Speed, Resulting in Broken Leg and Brain Trauma - Cedric Bacon v. City of Joliet" »

A judge's job is to enforce the letter of the law. However, every so often a judge is presented with a case that whose law is not laid out in prior statute or case law. Take for instance the personal injury case of Gayane Zokhrabov v. Jeung-Hee Park, etc., 2011 IL App. (1st) 102672. The unique case facts meant that there was no clear legal precedent, leaving it up to the Illinois Appellate Court to establish a new precedent.

Zokhrabov arose out of an Illinois train accident in which Hiroyuko Joho was killed after being struck by a train. The plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit, Gayane Zokhrabov, was standing on the train platform when Joho was hit by the fast-moving train. Zokhrabov was injured after being struck down by one of Joho's body parts; she then sued Joho's estate for her fractured wrist, legs, and shoulder.

The theory of liability in the Illinois personal injury lawsuit was that Joho's negligence caused Zokhrabov's injuries and that his estate should be liable for those injuries. Because the fact pattern in Zokhrabov's was unique and unprecedented, the Cook County judge handling the case relied on a similar Illinois lawsuit to make his ruling - Cunis v. Brennan, 56 Ill.2d 372, 308 N.E.2d 617 (1974).

Continue reading "Illinois Appellate Court Opens Waiting Passenger's Lawsuit Against Estate of Teen Killed by Amtrak Train" »

When deciding a trial case, a jury has a duty to be consistent in its verdict, i.e., it can't say one thing, but then enter a contrary verdict. If a jury contradicts itself, generally one party has cause to overturn or vacate that verdict. This is what happened in the Illinois personal injury lawsuit of Gerald English v. Anthony Daniel McLaughlin, 10 L 677 (DuPage County). A judge ruled to vacate the verdict in favor of the defendant after the jury entered inconsistent statements.

The facts of English v. McLaughlin involved a 2007 Glendale Heights bicycle accident. The plaintiff, Gerald English, was biking southbound on Glen Ellyn Road and crossing Armitage Avenue. At the Illinois personal injury trial, English testified that he entered the intersection on a green light and that the light turned yellow as he was biking through. English estimated that he was biking around 17 mph at the time and was therefore unable to stop when the defendant, Anthony McLaughlin, turned left in front of him.

English's bike ended up striking the rear-end of McLaughlin's car and resulted in multiple bone fractures. English fractured his right knee, left shoulder, and right finger. And while none of his fractures required surgery, his injuries did prevent English from performing his normal engineering duties for about two months following the Illinois bicycle accident.

Continue reading "Court Vacates Verdict for Driver in Bicycle Collision Case - English v. McLaughlin" »

The Illinois Appellate Court recently examined a landowner's duty to warn visitors of an open and obvious hazard in Paul T. Swearingen v. Momentive Specialty Chemicals, Inc., No. 11-2088 (December 7, 2011). The personal injury claim examines whether a company and its employees owed a duty to a truck driver to warn him against the danger presented by a low hanging fire extinguisher system.

In March 2010, the plaintiff, Paul Swearingen, was working as a tanker truck driver for Transport Service Co. During the course of his employment, Swearingen delivered a tank of chemicals to a Momentive Specialty Chemicals facility located in Carpentersville, Illinois. After parking his truck in Momentive's unloading bay, one of the Momentive employees asked Swearingen to open his truck's dome.

Swearingen reports that he climbed his truck's ladder to access the dome opening, at which point he noted some low hanging piping located a few feet above the truck's dome. The piping was bright red and was reportedly part of Momentive's fire extinguisher system. Swearingen proceeded to climb on top of his tanker, at which point he struck his head on the piping and fell off his truck. Swearingen filed a personal injury lawsuit against Momentive in which he claimed the chemical facility was responsible for his injuries.

Continue reading "Summary Judgment for Defendant in Negligence Action Where Hazard was Open and Obvious- Deliberate Encounter Exception Did Not Apply in Swearingen v. Momentive Specialty Chemicals" »