Significant Trials and Case Experience
Barraza v. Bonsack Trucking
96 M1 30572 – Trucking
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 $750,000.00 when assigned to the trial judge. The case settled before the trial judge after motions in limine for $60,000.00.
Brant v. Allied Metal 99 L 12015
Premises, Construction
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.
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.
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.
Causevic vs. Blago Bebek;
02 L 00248, Cook County
The plaintiff, the father of his minor daughter, sued his landlord after his daughter slipped on water while walking down the stairs to the ground floor of their apartment building, struck the back of her head on the stairs and was injured. The water on the stairs was melted ice and snow that had been tracked onto the stairs by tenants during that morning’s heavy snow. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the building owner, whom we represented, was liable for the condition of the water on the steps and responsible for his daughter’s fall. Our motion for summary judgment argued that the water tracked onto the stairs was from a natural accumulation of snow outside the apartment building door and from snow blown into the vestibule of the building and, therefore, our client was not liable. The Cook County motion judge agreed and granted our motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged that his daughter sustained a significant head injury that had changed her functioning and behavior and had made her depressed and morose. Her regular treating physician at Children’s Memorial Hospital testified in her deposition that she always found the girl positive and cheerful and stated that when she informed the plaintiff she could find nothing wrong with his daughter, he responded by stating "that was impossible, my lawyer told me she would never be normal again."
Dauber v. Mindy's Development et al.,
01 L 016462, Cook County
The plaintiff sued five defendants when a stack of bricks fell from a scaffold on to the plaintiff’s head. The plaintiff claimed over $100,000.00 in medical expenses and lost time. The plaintiff sued each party associated with the subject construction project. We represented the brick supplier and brought a motion for summary judgment. The motion argued that there was no question of fact that the brick supplier delivered the bricks to the site, but it did not place the bricks on the scaffold or do anything to cause the bricks to fall and the brick supplier engaged in no activity at the site from which a duty to the plaintiff arose. The Cook County motion judge agreed with our position and granted the motion for summary judgment.
Harb v. ANR 98 L 9837
Trucking, Loading Dock
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.
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.
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.
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 $193,000.00 and the jury returned a not guilty verdict for the defendant.
Patel v UPS 98 L 14182
Trucking
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.
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 $400,000.00 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.
Elois Steele v. Margaret Hoffner, Administrator of the Estate of Julius Hoffner, 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.
Trevor v. Reyna and Sodexho, Inc.,
04 L 066, Rock Island County, Illinois
This lawsuit arose as the result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred when the defendant wasmaking a left hand turn at an intersection and an impact with the plaintiff occurred. The plaintiff intended to go straight through the intersection. The plaintiff alleged the accident caused a permanent back injury which necessitated two surgeries. The plaintiff’s claim consisted of medical costs of approximately $40,000, future medical costs of over $80,000, and a wage loss claim of over $230,000. The plaintiff made a settlement demand of $425,000.00. The defendant’s initial settlement offer was $45,000.00.
After thoroughly investigating the plaintiff’s post-accident employment history and pre- and post-accident medical history, we were able to substantially reduce the plaintiff’s wage loss claim. We discovered a subsequent work injury which the plaintiff gave inconsistent statements about which caused his treating surgeon to offer damaging evidence deposition testimony favorable to the defendant’s position. The depositions of the plaintiff’s subsequent employers more or less eliminated the plaintiff’s wage loss claim. After steadily lowering his demand, the trial began. Several of the defendant’s key motions to bar and motions in limine, most notably motions to bar any opinions on permanency, future medical bills and future pain and suffering, were granted. As the parties were to begin opening statements, the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s final settlement offer of $65,000.00, which was well below the settlement authority.
