June 15, 2010

Case Law Update: Rescue Doctrine

Tennehill v. Costello, No. 1-09-0868 (5-10-10) affirmed a case in which the plaintiff sued her neighbor for shoulder injuries sustained while helping neighbor walk to her car after Defendant had a medical emergency and insisted that Plaintiff drive her to the hospital rather than call ambulance. Rescue doctrine, which may be asserted by a rescuer to recover damages from a defendant who places herself in danger, is inapplicable as this Defendant did not place herself in a dangerous situation where she knew others might or could attempt to rescue her, but instead asked or insisted that Plaintiff drive her to hospital. Plaintiff failed to establish any duty of Defendant, and injury to Plaintiff was not foreseeable, thus summary judgment for Defendant properly granted. This Illinois case will impact personal injury law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
June 13, 2010

Case Law Update: Distraction Exception in Premises Liability

Wilfong v. L.J. Dodd Construction, No. 2-09-0347 (5-27-10) affirmed that a a project manager on elementary school construction project, was injured when he fell while walking across ruts on muddy construction site, while talking on his cell phone about his work. Summary judgment properly granted, as ruts were open and obvious, given Plaintiff's testimony that tops of ruts were unstable and he was looking at ruts to determine his next step and was familiar with how to avoid ruts on jobsite. Distraction exception did not apply as distraction was solely within Plaintiff's own creation, because Plaintiff chose to continue walking on ruts while on his phone, and distraction was not reasonably foreseeable by Defendants. Court did not err in giving little or no weight to expert's statement offered with motion to reconsider, as no indication that statement was not available prior to summary judgment hearing. This case will impact premises liability in Illinois.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
May 17, 2010

Case Law Update: Negligence in Slip and Fall

Callaghan v. The Village of Clarendon Hills, No. 2-09-0482 (4-29-10) affirmed a case that found that the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on ice and snow while walking on public sidewalk near a public park within a residential area. Court properly dismissed negligence count, as Tort Immunity Act contemplates determination of immunity for bounded public property, and sidewalk here was immediately adjacent to a park; and Park District maintained it, indicative of intended use for recreational purposes. Court properly dismissed willful and wanton count, as facts alleged do not support inference of willful and wanton conduct; Defendants did not do anything to protect some persons and not others, and did not intentionally remove any safety device. This Illinois case will impact slip and fall cases.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
May 14, 2010

Case Law Update: Tort Immunity Act

Hemminger v. Nehring, No. 3-08-0751 (4-8-10) affirmed a case where a plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of his wife. This was based on a misinterpretation of Pap smear and failure to diagnose cervical cancer, which was diagnosed as Stage III six months later. Pap smear is "screening test" that is part of the diagnostic process, thus immunity provisions of Sections 6-105 and 6-106 of Tort Immunity Act apply. The court found that the summary judgment proper as to Defendants cytotechnician and physician, who were employed by municipal hospital and were within scope of their employment. This case will impact wrongful death law in Illinois.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
May 12, 2010

Case Law Update: Voluntary Dismissal in Wrongful Death

Green v. Northwest Community Hospital, No. 1-09-2233 (4-28-10) reversed the Circuit Court decision and found that voluntary dismissal order falls within exception to general rule against claim-splitting, where court's order stated "plaintiff is granted leave to voluntarily dismiss with leave to reinstate as a matter of right", and thus clearly and unmistakably granted leave to refile the action. Court properly dismissed claims for wrongful death, survival, and loss of consortium, which reached final judgment in first action, but erred in dismissing consumer fraud and health care fraud claims, which did not reach final judgment in first action because order expressly reserved right to refile. This Illinois case will impact wrongful death law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
May 12, 2010

Case Law Update: Voluntary Dismissal in Wrongful Death

Green v. Northwest Community Hospital, No. 1-09-2233 (4-28-10) reversed the Circuit Court decision and found that voluntary dismissal order falls within exception to general rule against claim-splitting, where court's order stated "plaintiff is granted leave to voluntarily dismiss with leave to reinstate as a matter of right", and thus clearly and unmistakably granted leave to refile the action. Court properly dismissed claims for wrongful death, survival, and loss of consortium, which reached final judgment in first action, but erred in dismissing consumer fraud and health care fraud claims, which did not reach final judgment in first action because order expressly reserved right to refile. This Illinois case will impact wrongful death law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 18, 2010

Uniform Arbitration Act

House Bill 5999 creates four rules to use in the substance of the dispute. (1) The arbitrators must decide the dispute following any rules of law that are chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Requires that any designation of the law or legal system of a given jurisdiction to be construed, as directly referring to the substantive law of that jurisdiction and not to its conflict of law rules. (2) If the parties do not make such a designation, the arbitrators must apply the law as determined by the conflict of laws rules that they consider applicable. (3) The arbitrators must decide according to the strict rules of law unless the parties have expressly authorized some other standard. (4) In all cases, the arbitrators must decide according to the terms of the contract and take into account the usages of the trade applicable to the transaction. This case will impact all Illnois law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 17, 2010

Case Law Update: Requests to Admit in Negligence

Oezle v. Score Sports Venutre, No. 1-0901476 (3-30-10) affirmed a case where the plaintiff was injured when she caught her foot on a rope exercise ladder hidden underneath curtain behind tennis court while playing at indoor tennis club where she was member. Plaintiff had duty to read release which she signed as part of her membership agreement. Ladder was "equipment", thus covered by release, and injury was foreseeable, thus grant of summary judgment on negligence count proper. Question of fact precluded summary judgment on willful and wanton count as to Defendant's efforts to prevent danger. Responses to request to admit which are boilerplate lack of information responses but without further explanation are admissions. This case will impact personal injury cases.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 16, 2010

Case Law Update: Forum Non Conveniens in Slip and Fall

Wagner v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., No. 1-08-3213 (2-10-10) found that a plaintiff, a resident of Will County, slipped and fell at grocery store in Joliet, and filed in Will County a premises liability claim against store and, later, products liability claims against Clorox, the manufacturer of the Tilex product which was claimed to have leaked from package and spilled onto floor, and a related medical malpractice claim. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed seventh amended complaint in Will County, the day after court ordered Plaintiffs to answer Defendants' supplemental interrogatories as to factual basis for claims that product leaked or had insufficient tamper resistance. One year later, Plaintiffs filed complaint in Cook County. Judge improperly denied Defendants' forum non conveniens motion to dismiss or transfer, as private interest factors and public interest factors strongly favored Will County venue. Location of treating physician, and of parties' attorneys, is to be given little weight. This first district Illinois case will impact slip and fall law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 11, 2010

Case Law Update: Wrongful Death Due to Over-Prescription of Medicines

Dobyns v. Chung, M.D., No. 5-07-0568 (3-19-10) affirmed a wrongful death case filed by a widower alleging over-prescribing of narcotics over long term and failure to adequately warn about risk of harm from taking several kinds together. Decedent was age 31 and spouse and two minor sons survived. Jury verdict for $100,000, was reduced by 50% for contributory negligence. Defense counsel had remarked during closing that if there were liability verdict of about $1 million would be fair, but jury was to disregard attorneys' statements if not based on evidence, and it was an opinion. The appellate court determined that the jury verdict was not manifestly inadequate and cannot make scientific assessment of verdict by comparison to other verdicts in state. This case will impact Illinois wrongful death law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 10, 2010

Legislative Update: Electronic Notice by Clerks

House Bill 5381 will allow the circuit court clerk to give “notice” to a party by “hard copy” or by “electronic notice” under a uniform and standard policy adopted by the clerk. Electronic notice has the same effect as notice by hard copy if this statute and clerk’s policies are complied with. The bill gives the recipient an option to receive notices by hard copy or electronic notice by registering an electronic address with the clerk. The bill requires the clerk to keep a copy of the electronic content and a delivery receipt. This bill will impact Illinois law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 9, 2010

Case Law Update: Distraction Exception in Premises Liability

Hope v. Hope, No. 4-09-0707 (3-4-10) affirmed that after a young daughter sued her parents for injuries sustained when she fell on muddy front steps of parents' house, claiming distraction exception as she had forgotten about mud being on steps. Daughter's activities which occurred between her arrival at house and her fall were everyday activities of eating, sleeping, studying, and watching TV, and did not occur during fall; thus, distraction exception does not apply. This case will impact Illinois premises liability law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 6, 2010

Case Law Update: Verdict in Wrongful Death

Dobyns v. Chung, M.D. No. 5-07-0568 (3-19-10) affirmed a wrongful death case filed by widower alleging over-prescribing of narcotics over long term and failure to adequately warn about risk of harm from taking several kinds of medications together. Decedent was age 31 and spouse and two minor sons survived. Jury verdict for $100,000, reduced by 50% for contributory negligence. Defense counsel had remarked during closing that if there were liability verdict of about $1 million would be fair, but jury was to disregard attorneys' statements if not based on evidence, and it was an opinion. Jury verdict not manifestly inadequate; cannot make scientific assessment of verdict by comparison to other verdicts in state. This Illinois case will greatly impact wrongful death law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
April 4, 2010

Case Law Update: Assumption of Risk at a Sporting Event

Pickel v. Springfield Stallions, No. 4-09-0490 (3-23-10) reversed a decision where the trial court found the plaintiff, a spectator during arena football game, was injured when football player ran out of bounds, fell over a wall separating spectators from field, and collided with Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff was a spectator, not a participant, doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable, and Defendants owed her duty of care to take reasonable precautions for safety, such as adequately sturdy wall, or warnings. Defendants not foreclosed from pleading contributory negligence, which is a question of fact for jury. This Illinois case will impact premises liability law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
March 26, 2010

Case Law Update: Statute of Limitations as applied to the Tort Immunity Act

Kaufmann v. Schroeder, No. 109738, is a case that presented a question as to whether a trial court had properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims of negligent hiring, negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of allegations that doctor employed by defendant-municipal hospital committed unwanted sex act on plaintiff, where dismissal was based on expiration of one-year statute of limitations period found in section 8-101(a) of Tort Immunity Act. While plaintiff argued that applicable limitations period should have been two-year period found in section 8-101(b) of Tort Immunity Act, Appellate Court, in affirming dismissal, found that section 8-101(a) of Tort Immunity Act applied since doctor's actions were unrelated to providing patient care, and plaintiff's injuries otherwise did not result from her patient care. (Dissent filed.) This Illinois Supreme Court Ruling will have an effect on the tort immunity act.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
March 7, 2010

Case Law Update: Duty of Care in Premises Liability

Pence v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Corporation, No. 1-08-3668 (2-3-10) found that when the plaintiff parked his car in Metra parking lot, and walked diagonally across the street, and in middle of street tripped on bolt protruding from railroad tie. Metra owed no duty to Plaintiff as he was not a passenger, as he had not yet boarded train and had not purchased train ticket that morning, even though Plaintiff stated that he had monthly train pass and intended to board train. Plaintiff was not in a crosswalk at time of his fall, thus he was not intended user of middle of street and Metra owed no duty of care to him. This case will impact Illinois premises liability law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
March 7, 2010

Legislative Update: Electronic notice

House Bill 5381 would allow the circuit court to give required notice to a party by email if the party has an electronic address. Requires that the circuit clerk maintain a copy of the electronic content and a delivery receipt in his or her records. Gives electronic notices the same effect as a hard copy notice. This bill would have a large impact on Illinois lawyers.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
February 14, 2010

Case Law Update: Summary Judgment in Negligence

Norman v. Brandt, no. 4-09-0246 (2-4-10) is a case where the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, who offered to lead cars of friends who were heading to lake to swim, drove his vehicle "in concert" with driver of vehicle from which Plaintiff was thrown to cause his injuries and death. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision that granted summary judgment for Defendant because Plaintiff's vehicle was following closely behind Defendant on a narrow country road and careened off road and rolled over in field. Despite Defendant having exceeded speed limit, he did not commit tort in concert, per Restatement of Torts Section 876, as not attempting to race, no horseplay, and did not drive in way to encourage or substantially assist other driver to driver tortiously. This case will impact Illinois per se negligence.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
February 13, 2010

Case Law Update: Punitive Damages in Products Liability

Jackson v. Ford Motor Company, No. 5-05-0723 affirmed a jury verdict for $43 million, including $15 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs, in 1993 Lincoln Town Car, were rear-ended in dead center of car, at about 60 mph; fuel tank was crushed, and pipe wrench in trunk pierced fuel tank and caught fire immediately; both were severely burned and one Plaintiff died. Products liability and four negligence claims as to design of fuel tank. Court declined to extend due-process analysis of excessive punitive-damage awards to liability for punitive damages. Court concluded both parties received fair trial, as jury heard extensive evidence from both sides, and contested issues were fully and fairly presented. Ample evidence of standard of care and of alternative fuel tank locations recognized and used in auto industry. Defendant failed to submit special interrogatories and thus cannot claim prejudice on claim alleged to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. Proper to admit evidence of Defendant's pre-injury, post-sale safety improvements, as policy considerations that bar admission of post-accident remedial measures are inapplicable. This case will impact products liability law in Illinois.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share
February 12, 2010

Case Law Update: Insurance in Automobile Accidents

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Triana, Nos. 1-08-3310 (2-3-10) affirmed a decision ruling that a driver and a passenger who were in an automobile accident in Galena with an underinsured motorist should have been grated summary judgment. The summary judgment for the underinsured motorist was proper where the trial court found setoff provisions of the policy were not ambiguous; and only $100,000 in total UIM benefits remained for all defendant after setoff by $200,000 total paid to both by other driver's insurer. Underinsured motorists split limits of $300,000 per person/$300,000 per accident, but with setoff provision that these limits would be set off by aggregate amount paid by tortfeasor. This case will impact automobile accident law.

Posted by Levin & Perconti | | Email This Post

Posted In: Tips for Lawyers

| Share

Contact Us

Disclaimer

The purpose of this blog is to deliver news and information that is relevant to our areas of practice. The news and information reported on this blog represent the legal actions of attorneys throughout the United States. Our firm does not claim to represent plaintiffs in all of the lawsuits, settlements, and jury verdicts reported, only those noted as Levin & Perconti cases.

Subscribe

Subscribe

Enter your email address: Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs