SIGNIFICANT JURY TRIALS AND CASE EXPERIENCE
Illinois Farmers Insurance Company v. Veolia Environmental Services,
2007 L 001282, DuPage County, Illinois
The lawsuit arose as the result of a fire that started after a Veolia garbage truck allegedly clipped a power line, started a fire and a residence was nearly burned to the ground. Illinois Farmers filed a large subrogation action against Veolia. Investigation revealed a Veolia truck serviced the subject location at the time the fire started and power lines had been pulled down above the waste containers that Veolia serviced. While it appeared there was no question Veolia was a cause of the incident, we argued that the proximate cause of this accident was the low-hanging utility lines. We advised the plaintiff that we would file third party complaints against various utilities, and argue Veolia was not the proximate cause of the subject accident. Illinois Farmers eventually settled for 50% of its claim.
Steven Voller v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc., M. Ecker Co. of Illinois and Reinke Gypsum Supply Co., Inc.,
2007 L 17, Kane County, Illinois
Plaintiff Voller was employed for only a few weeks as an insulation installer at a construction project in Pingree Grove, IL. The subject accident occurred on July 13, 2005 when approximately 18 sheets of drywall fell on the plaintiff’s left leg. We represented Reinke Gypsum Supply Co., Inc., the drywall supplier. When he tried to move the sheets himself after being sent back to the site to “re-do” his insulation installation. His original insulation installation was performed the day before, his supervisor inspected Voller’s work and found it unsatisfactory. The drywall was then delivered and steadied against the window the plaintiff was sent back to re-insulate, which he attempted to do the next day when the accident occurred. Plaintiff sued Reinke alleging it was negligent in the placement of the drywall and created a hazardous condition. The trial court granted our motion for summary judgment on behalf of Reinke which found there was nothing negligent in the manner Reinke performed its delivery and stacking of the drywall.
William P. Sonnenberg v. RMDS, et al.,
06 LA 213 McHenry County, Illinois – Jury Trial in October, 2009
The lawsuit arose as the result of a head-on collision that allegedly occurred when an RMDS truck pulled into traffic at right from a hospital parking lot. The RMDS truck did not make contact with any vehicles but the plaintiff pulled into oncoming traffic to avoid the truck. Several independent witnesses and the investigating police officer testified that the plaintiff had the right-of-way and the RMDS driver pled guilty to exiting from a prohibited emergency vehicle entrance. The plaintiff was found to be intoxicated upon admission to the hospital but, interestingly, none of the witnesses had any criticism of the plaintiff’s driving and there was no evidence he was speeding or driving erratically. A defense retained toxicologist reviewed the plaintiff’s lab work and, after the plaintiff’s attorney disputed the relevance and validity of the blood test results and sought to have the evidence excluded, the court allowed the expert to testify to the plaintiff’s diminished reaction time and perception. The court also granted the defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the RMDS driver’s plea of guilty to the traffic violation. The plaintiff sustained significant injuries, had three surgeries, presented verified special damages exceeding $150,000.00 and asked for $680,000.00 from the jury in closing. After a 50% reduction for the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, the net verdict was $130,000.00, the exact midpoint between the last demand ($200,000.00) and the last offer ($60,000.00) at the mediation prior to trial.
Ward v. Frito-Lay, Inc., et al.
06 L 455, Winnebago County, Illinois
The plaintiff was allegedly injured biting down on a “metallic object” while eating potato chips and filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, the distribution company, the grocery store chain which sold the potato chips and the owner of a trademark related to the potato chips. A separate six-figure demand was made to each defendant. From the outset, the plaintiff’s attorney filed numerous frivolous, harassing and baseless pleadings and discovery requests and significant motion practice was conducted attacking the actions of the plaintiff’s attorney and his filings.
A motion to dismiss was granted in favor of the distributor of the potato chips. Additionally, the manufacturer and the grocery store chain were dismissed as a discovery sanction. Through diligent investigation and significant motion practice, the injuries alleged by the plaintiff were found to be a result of his own extremely poor dental hygiene and the “metallic object” was identified as the plaintiff’s own dental filling and not related to the potato chips. As a result, the owner of the trademark related to the potato chips was dismissed on summary judgment. A post-judgment motion to sanction the plaintiff’s attorney for filing a frivolous lawsuit in bad faith was granted and the defendants were awarded $10,000.00. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the distributor, the manufacturer and the grocery store chain and eventually additional sanctions are expected to be sought and awarded against the plaintiff.
Limperis v. Grudnistyj and Laboratory Corporation of America
06 M5 457, Cook County, Illinois
The plaintiff, a doctor with his own family practice, was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendants and sustained a torn ulnar collateral ligament of the thumb of his dominant hand, which required surgery and therapy. Following the surgery, the plaintiff allegedly lost sensation on the ulnar aspect of his dominant thumb. Due to the loss of sensation, the plaintiff alleged a significant loss of earning capacity and claimed that he was unable to perform a variety of in office surgical procedures that previously accounted for a substantial portion of his revenue. Based on the alleged loss of earning capacity, the plaintiff made a demand of nearly $3,000,000.00. The plaintiff’s wage loss claim supported by the evidence was about $85,000.00.
Investigation into the surgery revealed that any loss of sensation following surgery may possibly have been caused by an error of the surgeon, a friend of the plaintiff. A significant amount of detailed discovery was aimed at the plaintiff’s medical practice, the practice’s and the plaintiff’s tax records and the plaintiff’s professional malpractice insurer, which revealed that following the occurrence, the plaintiff certified, on multiple occasions, that his ability to practice medicine and perform surgical procedures was not compromised which contradicted his deposition testimony. Following the disclosure of this information from the plaintiff’s malpractice insurer, the plaintiff requested mediation and the case settled for a low six-figure amount, the week before the malpractice underwriter was to be deposed.
Parker v. Patterson, Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago and Enterprise Leasing Company,
05 L 6961, Cook County, Illinois
This lawsuit arose as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred when the defendant/driver was operating an Enterprise rental vehicle on a highway and impacted a concrete support column. A minor passenger was thrown from the vehicle and died as a result of the accident. The estate of the minor passenger filed a claim against the defendants with wrongful death and survival counts.
Discovery, significant motion practice, and extensive investigation into the beneficiaries of the minor passenger’s estate revealed that the primary beneficiary and administrator of the estate was imprisoned and not in contact with the minor plaintiff through the majority of her life. This evidence compelled the plaintiffs to agree to a settlement that was favorable to the defendants and within the policy limits.
Allan D. Stirling v. SDR Contracting Inc., et al.,
05 L 4556, Cook County, Illinois
We represented a trucking company, SDR, that was involved with the delivery of very large steel beam to a construction site. The plaintiff, a construction worker, was seriously injured when one of the picked beams rolled toward him as he and a co-worker were unloading the beam. It was alleged the load was not properly secured by SDR and/or the load shifted during transit. Two witnesses testified that the SDR driver stated the load shifted during transit. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries when he jumped from the trailer to avoid the beam. At mediation, the plaintiff’s demand was over $3,000,000.00. The case eventually settled for $500,000.00, with the steel fabricator and party responsible for loading the beams paying the bulk of the settlement and SDR contributing approximately 20% of the total settlement.
Sabrina Jones v. Dart Transit and Michael Dickens
05 L 45, Henry County, IL
Third Appellate District Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Sabrina Jones was a passenger in the tractor trailer being operated by her boyfriend, Michael Dickens, on I-74 near Rock Island in western Illinois. Jones is the sister of Michael Dickens’ ex-wife, Margaret Dickens. After Jones and Dickens stopped driving for the night near Davenport, Iowa, they began drinking heavily. At some point in the early morning hours of April 10, 2004, they left the bar, got in the tractor and started driving again on I-74. After driving several miles at highway speed, Jones inexplicably exited the tractor, coming to rest on the shoulder of I-74 after sustaining some horrific injuries including an amputation of one of her legs. Neither Jones nor Dickens could recall in their testimony how the subject accident took place or why Jones exited the tractor. Dickens continued on several miles to a rest area where he called Margaret Dickens and told her that Sabrina had jumped from the tractor. During an interview in the hospital a few days later with an Illinois state trooper, Jones admitted to the trooper that she had jumped from a moving vehicle before during an argument with a past boyfriend. Dickens was charged with driving a commercial vehicle under the influence, served prison time and was released.
Both Dart and Dickens, through separate counsel, brought motions for summary judgment based on the testimony of the only two witnesses, Jones and Dickens, that the plaintiff is unable to prove that any act of Dickens in operating his motor vehicle was the proximate cause of Jones’ accident and her injuries. While Dickens was clearly intoxicated at the time of the accident, there was no evidence that any negligent act of Dickens caused Jones to exit the tractor. The motions argued that Dickens’, and Jones’, intoxication were conditions, but not the cause, of Jones’ accident and injuries and that no one could deem Jones’ actions as reasonably foreseeable. The motions for summary judgment were granted, the plaintiff appealed, the Third Appellate District Court affirmed and the plaintiff petitioned to the Illinois Supreme Court which denied the plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal.
McReynolds v. Penske Truck Leasing Corporation, et al.
2005 L 294 Madison County, Illinois
McReynolds was employed as a delivery driver with Genuine Parts. Penske had a contract with the plaintiff’s employer to perform maintenance on Genuine Parts’ fleet including the plaintiff’s delivery truck. Plaintiff unloading a pallet of oil at a Napa store when he fell off the back of the liftgate of the truck and landed on his back on oil drums behind the truck. The plaintiff initially reported to his employer that the accident occurred when the pallet jack he was using malfunctioned. Plaintiff sustained disc herniations in his cervical and lumbosacral spine and will never work again. The plaintiff’s medical bills totaled $370,000.00 and the plaintiff’s projected wage loss was in excess of $1,000,000.00. Plaintiff alleged that Penske failed to properly perform maintenance on the truck. Evidence was developed that the majority of liability lie with the plaintiff’s employer and with the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s settlement demand against all defendants was $2,500,000.00 Penske settled the matter for $115,000.00, a very favorable settlement given the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injury and claimed damages.
Brian A. Davis v. Michael P. Reilly,
2005 L 000106, DuPage County, Illinois – Jury Trial November, 2006
This matter involved a fight at a drinking establishment. We defended one of the combatants - all witnesses testified our client was the instigator of the melee. He was defended under his homeowner’s insurance policy. While we could not admit negligence due to a related coverage action, our client did not recall how the fight started and we did not dispute the eyewitness testimony, instead focusing our defense on the damages. At the conclusion of the trial, a judgment was entered on the jury verdict in the amount of $58,871.61. Based on the amount of verified specials and injury (fractured orbital bones requiring insertion of titanium plate, approximately $27,000.00 in medical bills) and the lack of any defense witnesses, this was an excellent result.
Grange Mutual Casualty Company v. Pudelwitts & American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
04 CH 18474, Cook County, Illinois
The individual defendant, Pudelwitts, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident when his vehicle was struck by an uninsured driver. The accident occurred while Pudelwitts was in the course of his employment and he received benefits pursuant to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. Pudelwitts was covered under two uninsured motorist policies with Grange Mutual Casualty Company and American Family Mutual Insurance Company. American Family Mutual Insurance Company set off the entire amount of its uninsured motorist policy pursuant to the workers’ compensation setoff language in its policy. Grange Mutual Casualty Company alleged that it was entitled to duplicate the workers’ compensation setoff taken by American Family Mutual Insurance Company, in addition to taking a setoff for the amount of its uninsured motorist policy. Pudelwitts argued that it would violate Illinois public policy for Grange Mutual Casualty Company to duplicate the setoff that was taken by American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The court held in favor of Pudelwitts and against Grange Mutual Casualty Company on cross motions for summary judgment. The case proceeded on Pudelwitts’ bad faith claim against Grange Mutual Casualty Company and the parties eventually agreed to a settlement that was favorable to Pudelwitts.
Lawrence v. Masheris,
04 LK 540, Kane County, Illinois
The plaintiff was injured when his car was rear-ended by the defendant in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained a small focal disc herniation and was forced to work light duty for approximately two months. Ultimately, the case proceeded to trial. Numerous motions in limine were granted in favor of the plaintiff, which essentially barred the defendant from introducing evidence that the accident was a minimal impact, the defendant’s primary defense. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding six times the amount of the plaintiff’s special damages.
Hatton, Jesse v. United Parcel Service & Victor McIntosh;
01 LM 1310, Madison County, Illinois. September 13 - 15, 2004
The Plaintiff, Jesse Hatton, was injured when a UPS package car operated by Victor McIntosh pinned Hatton’s legs while backing into a loading dock at the Bethalto School District. Hatton sustained a torn ligament in his knee which was treated conservatively. After being laid off from the school district in May 2001, he started working as a security guard in October, 2002. Hatton had medical bills and lost time totaling about $8,500.00. For UPS’s defense, we presented three witnesses who testified that shortly after the accident Hatton admitted to them that the accident was not the UPS driver’s fault, that Hatton did not see the UPS package car backing in and that he was not paying attention. We also presented the testimony of his supervisor at the security company who testified that Hatton boasted to her that he had faked claims before, that there was nothing wrong with his knee and that he was going to get $2,000,000.00 from UPS from this suit. Hatton’s attorney asked the jury for over $90,000.00, we suggested a figure of $4,200.00. After an hour of deliberating, the Madison County jury returned a verdict of $8,400.00. The employer was not a third party defendant and there is an $11,000.00 workers’ compensation lien to be resolved from the judgment amount.
EstateofJamesFlach,Deceasedv.Ag-ChemCorp.&AGCOCorp.v.VHAssociates,Inc.,
03 L 56, Macon County, Illinois; Settled during Jury Trial
The lawsuit arose as the result of an accident which occurred when Flach, an employee of VH Associates, was operating a Terra-Gator, a type of spreader, underneath power lines when the extension arm of the machine came in contact with the line, the machine became energized and, while attempting to exit the machine, Flach sustained severe injuries and died about six months after the accident. The employer replaced parts and repaired the machine within weeks after the accident and modified the part of the machine involved in the subject accident about eighteen months after the accident before a wrongful death suit was filed and before the manufacturer had an opportunity to inspect the equipment, but after the manufacturer had notice of the incident. The Estate of Flach sued the manufacturer of the Terra-Gator and the manufacturer filed a third party complaint against the employer for contribution and for spoliation of evidence and later, wrongful destruction of evidence. After discovery, research and extensive motion practice, the employer successfully moved to dismiss all spoliation and destruction of evidence counts against it. While the employer’s actions did not allow the manufacturer an opportunity to ever inspect the equipment in the condition it was in at the time of the accident, the employer’s motion to dismiss was granted three times as to three amended third party complaints, the last with prejudice, on the basis that there was no special relationship between the employer and manufacturer alleged from which any duty arose to preserve the evidence. The workers compensation lien was over $1.4 million with probable liability on the employer. The suit settled with the employer recovering a significant portion of its lien, which would never have been possible had the spoliation counts not been dismissed.
Estate of Cullen, Deceased, v. Rogers and PBX, Inc., et. al.,
02 L 001892, Cook County, Illinois
The administrator of the estate of the deceased truck driver sued Rogers, another truck driver, for negligence and the driver’s employer for negligent retention and entrustment as a result of a fatal accident allegedly caused by Rogers’ improper backing at a loading dock. The defendant driver had a questionable driving history which included a number of prior moving violations and a number of prior accidents. After substituting as attorneys for the defendants, the defendants filed an amended answer on behalf of the employer admitting the driver was acting as an agent of the employer at the time of the accident. By doing so, the defendants were then able have a motion to dismiss the negligent retention and entrustment count granted, arguing that the cause of action for negligent entrustment was duplicative and unnecessary. The dismissal of the negligent retention and entrustment count made the history of the driver’s prior moving violations and accidents irrelevant and inadmissible and provided a basis for a motion to bar at trial essentially all of the plaintiff’s opinion witness’s testimony on trucking safety.
The case was complicated late in the discovery process when the administrator of the estate of the deceased, his widow, was diagnosed with spinocerebellar ataxia 3, a very rare, genetic, progressive, neurological disorder. The plaintiff contended the presence of the condition increased the value of the widow’s loss of consortium claim. The defendants identified and disclosed a neurologist specializing in movement disorders to counter the specialist the plaintiff disclosed, a national authority on ataxias, on the key issue of the progression of the condition in the future. After preparation of several motions in limine, motions to bar significant portions of the plaintiff’s liability and medical opinion witnesses’ testimony, the plaintiff’s future lost wages claim and the plaintiff’s loss of consortium claim, analysis of issues raised by the widow’s ataxia, two mediation sessions and surveillance, the case was able to be resolved for a reasonable amount.
VanlinerInsuranceCompanyv.RollinsLeasingCorp., 01 L 3108 consolidated with Michael Rennie v. Rollins Leasing Corp. 01 L 3290 and Vanliner Insurance Company and McCollister’s Moving &Storage,Inc.v.Rollins Leasing Corporation 01 CH 10870
Vanliner, the workers compensation insurer of McCollister’s, sued our client, Rollins Leasing, for recovery of a workers compensation lien of over $200,000 which arose when McCollister’s employee, Rennie, was injured while unloading a large, wheeled crate from a McCollister’s trailer. Rennie sustained a fractured tibia and an L3 compression fracture requiring a spinal fusion. Rennie also sued Rollins in a personal injury suit. Rollins twice tendered its defense of both suits to Vanliner and Rennie’s employer, McCollister’s, with whom Rollins had a maintenance agreement requiring McCollister’s to insure, defend and indemnify Rollins under certain circumstances. Vanliner’s and McCollister’s attorney twice denied the tender and filed a declaratory judgment against Rollins in the Chancery court. Due to the employer’s attorney’s handling of the tenders, Rollins filed a motion to disqualify that firm. In response, the original firm withdrew and two new firms appeared on behalf of Vanliner and McCollister’s. Rollins filed a counterclaim in the personal injury case against McCollister’s for contribution, breach of contract for failure to defend and indemnify and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance and a counterclaim in the declaratory judgment case for the same breach of contract counts, attorneys fees and penalties for the insurer’s vexatious and unreasonable conduct regarding the tenders and for attorneys fees pursuant to the maintenance agreement.
Rennie’s personal injury case settled with Vanliner/McCollister’s paying $65,000 to Rennie with Rollins paying nothing and Vanliner waived the $200,000 lien they originally sued Rollins to recover. After the original declaratory judgment complaint was dismissed on Rollins’ motion, Vanliner agreed to voluntarily dismiss its amended complaint for declaratory judgment against Rollins with our motion to dismiss and our counterclaim pending. McCollister’s agreed to voluntarily dismiss its contribution action against Rollins in the personal injury case after its initial counterclaim for contribution against Rollins was dismissed on Rollins’ motion rather than file an amended pleading. Lastly, Vanliner and McCollister’s agreed to pay the amount of attorneys fees awarded by the court on Rollins’ petition. After a hearing on the petition for attorneys fees, the court awarded, and Vanliner paid, all of my attorneys fees of about $40,000.
EloisSteelev.MargaretHoffner,AdministratoroftheEstateofJuliusHoffner,Deceased:
98 L 211, Will County Tried July 17, 2000 to July 19, 2000
In this case, the plaintiff, Elois Steele, was eastbound on Route 30 and the defendant, Julius Hoffner, was westbound on Route 30 making a left hand turn onto southbound Ridgeland Avenue in Matteson when an intersection accident occurred. Steele sustained a herniated disc confirmed by an independent medical exam and other injuries. The defendant disclosed to his attorney when preparing written discovery responses that the date of the accident was the last day he ever drove a car as he went blind the next day and was, in fact, coming home from his doctor's office at the time of the accident. Mr. Hoffner died a short time after the suit was filed. The Illinois Dead Man's Act states a party may not testify regarding an event that took place in the presence of the deceased. In this case, when our objection to the plaintiff testifying about how the accident occurred (an event which took place in the presence of Mr. Hoffner) was granted, the plaintiff was forced to rely on circumstantial evidence regarding liability. Also, due to the plaintiff's failure to disclose Rule 213(g) opinion witnesses, our motion in limine to bar the plaintiff's three doctors was granted and the plaintiff offered no testimony on damages other than Steele's testimony. The defense called no witnesses. The plaintiff asked for $75,000.00 in closing argument, we argued the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden or proof and the jury returned a not guilty verdict in favor of the defendant.
Bryant v. Walton and Carter’s Excavating,
00 L 008731, 00 L 009000, 00 L 009004, 00 L 009011, Cook County.
Five City of Chicago summer employees in the Jumping Jack Program in the Mayor’s Office of Special Events were involved in a very serious auto accident on July 29, 2000. The dump portion of the trailer being operated by Walton and owned by Carter’s elevated to a raised position while northbound on the Dan Ryan Expressway through downtown Chicago. The dump trailer struck the overpass, detached from the tractor and landed on the van in which the City workers were riding, killing two occupants, severely injuring a third and injuring two others. Personal injury and wrongful death cases were filed against Walton and Carter’s and they filed a third party complaint against the City of Chicago for contribution alleging that the City negligently provided the employees with a cargo van providing only two seats and seatbelts forcing the other occupants to sit on the floor or on folding chairs. Our firm represented the City of Chicago. The City filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the lack of seats and seatbelts was a condition, but not the proximate cause, of the accident. The intervening act of the dump trailer striking the overpass and crushing the van was completely unforeseeable and superseded any potential negligence of the City of Chicago in failing to provide adequate transportation. The motion also argued that Carter’s failed to produce any evidence that the lack of the correct number of seats or seatbelts made any difference in the injuries sustained or the deaths occurring. The motion was granted. A jury trial was held and, due to the City being dismissed from the case, the defendants admitted liability and the jury returned a verdict of over $63,000,000.00. While declaratory judgment actions on coverage are pending, the motion being granted facilitates recovery of the City’s seven-figure workers compensation lien that would likely not have been possible if the motion had been denied.
Brant v. Allied Metal
99 L 12015 – Premises, Construction - Jury Trial
Plaintiff, an independent contractor, was severely injured after falling through Allied Metal’s facility. We represented Allied Metal and the individual property owner in a jury trial in Cook County. We obtained a verdict of not guilty for the individual owner of Allied and a 50% reduction of the final verdict for Allied based on plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Plaintiff’s injuries included a shattered tibial plateau, knee replacement, fractured heel, fractured jaw, multiple broken ribs, collapsed lung, skull fracture, and memory problems. Plaintiff admitted into evidence $490,000.00 past/future medical and $523,000.00 lost wages. Plaintiff made a demand of $5,000,000.00 prior to entering a high/low agreement of $500,000.00 - $3,000,000.00. Final verdict of $800,000.00, which was under settlement authority of $1,000.000.00.
Kalis v. Colgate
99-3343 (Seventh Circuit) – Product Liability
Defended Colgate-Palmolive in a product liability suit arising when a fondue pot allegedly manufactured by Colgate exploded at a children’s birthday party, permanently injuring one child. The trial court granted our summary judgment motion on the basis that another manufacturer, rather than Colgate, could have manufactured the product at issue. The trial court’s decision was upheld on appeal.
Harb v. ANR
98 L 9837 – Trucking, Loading Dock - Jury Trial
Plaintiff alleged severe internal injuries as the result of a loading dock accident when plaintiff was pinned between the dock and defendant’s truck. The truck had backed in while plaintiff was clearing materials off the dock. The Cook County jury was persuaded that plaintiff should have been aware of traffic in the area and was negligent in not being aware of her surroundings. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on behalf of the defendants.
Patel v UPS
98 L 14182 – Trucking - Jury Trial
Multiple plaintiffs alleged injuries involving a collision with a UPS truck in an intersection-related accident. The UPS driver made a left-turn in front of a vehicle containing five individual plaintiffs. They all testified their vehicle had a green light and that the UPS vehicle turned into their vehicle. The UPS driver testified he turned on a red light after he already entered the intersection. The defense presented several independent witnesses to cast doubt on the plaintiffs’ version of events and a jury found that the driver of the plaintiffs’ vehicle was 50% at fault.
Willis v. Transamerica et al.,
98 L 3127, Cook County.
(Contribution case tried September 8, 1999 through October 8, 1999)
Independently managed (defendant's case in Willis v. Transamerica) a complex suit arising from a multiple fatality accident which settled for $100,000,000.00 with seven defendants. Conducted extensive written discovery and over 70 depositions. Responsible for court appearances, file management and indexing, media contact, pleadings, motions and regular reporting and case evaluations to the insurer. Prepared case for trial and extensively participated in $24,500,000.00 contribution trial including motions in limine, opening statement, examinations of dozens of witnesses, prepared over 200 trial exhibits, coordinated testimony of over 60 witnesses, closing argument and prepared and argued jury instructions.
Barraza v. Bonsack Trucking
96 M1 30572 – Trucking - Jury Trial
Obtained a not guilty verdict for Bonsack trucking company and its driver in a case where the defendant was turning right at an intersection and clipped plaintiff’s vehicle, which was passing on the right. The jury found that Plaintiff was following too closely in the turning lane and did not pay attention to defendant’s turn signal.
Bodan v. Martin Trucking, et al:
96 L 978, Cook County
The plaintiff was involved in a three-vehicle accident involving a tractor/trailer on the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago and claimed serious injuries including a traumatic brain injury. Through investigation and defendant's retained neuropsychiatrist's testimony showed plaintiff had prior psychiatric history, was malingering and not truthful to her physician. The demand was $750,000 when assigned to the trial judge. The case settled before the trial judge after motions in limine for $60,000.
Perez v. Cardella:
95 L 7176, Cook County
A pedestrian was struck by the defendant’s van when running across the street in heavy traffic. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries, was kept on life support permanently and incurred over $400,000 in medical bills. A summary judgment motion based on an unavoidable accident defense forced a settlement of $22,500.00, the amount budgeted to try the case.
Parker v. Watson:,
94 L 3372, Cook County
(Tried October 20, 1997 through October 27, 1997)
The plaintiff was a pedestrian crossing quarter-block, against the light when she was struck by the defendant and sustained serious fractures to her arm and leg. The plaintiff asked the jury for $193,000 and the jury returned a not guilty verdict for the defendant.
Webb v. Ambulance Service Corp.:
The plaintiff, a disabled person, was seriously injured while being transported by ambulance. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment for suing the wrong corporate defendant was granted and affirmed on appeal. 262 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 635 N.E.2d 643, 200 Ill. Dec. 304 (1994).
Jose Gasca v C&K Trucking,
No lawsuit filed
The claimant, Gasca, was an elderly male crossing a busy street in Chicago (Cook County) when he was struck by a C&K truck northbound in the left turn lane, first in line at the intersection. He died instantly. The decedent reportedly had three adult children and was separated from his wife. We were retained on the date of accident to preserve evidence and protect the interests of C&K Trucking and its employee/driver. Our firm immediately filed a petition for discovery and obtained court orders preserving all ambulance, police reports and any videotapes maintained by the City or the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) at or near the subject intersection. When we arrived at the scene, we saw there was an intersection camera and a CTA terminal. We eventually discovered that the accident was caught on the intersection camera and some of the events leading up to the accident were caught on a security camera that was on a CTA bus. The video revealed that Gasca was in the crosswalk and it appeared he initially had the right right-of-way. However, he entered the street to begin crossing after the “Do Not Walk” light started flashing. By the time Gasca crossed the two through lanes and reached the front of the C&K truck in the left turn lane the C&K truck and the other northbound traffic had a green light. It appeared that it would have been very difficult for the C&K driver to have seen Gasca over the right front corner of his tractor. Prior to a lawsuit being filed, the case settled for $100,000.00.
Butler v. John Burns
94 L 7835 – Construction
Plaintiff died when his motorcycle hit an excavation site in a street. Several warning signs had blown down the night before the accident and were not replaced by the defendant prior to plaintiff’s accident. The case settled for approximately $500,000.00 after the court granted various motions in limine presented by the defense allowing evidence of plaintiff’s excessive speed and evidence of plaintiff consuming alcohol.
|
