Chicago Skyline
YOU’RE GOING THROUGH ENOUGH AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP
Law firm group photo
43 Million

Total Cases Won

3,500 +

Trusted Clients

99%

Successful cases

26 Million

Total Personal Injury Cases Won

17 Million

Total Work Injury Cases Won

Riding or driving off-road vehicles is a common activity for people who enjoy the outdoors and a bit of adrenaline. There are many ways to engage in this sport, including all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Although they are much smaller in size compared to other off-road vehicles, ATVs can still pose a serious threat to riders, passengers, and bystanders. These powerful vehicles are capable of flipping over, and it is easy for an inexperienced or even experienced rider to lose control. If you were hurt in an accident involving an ATV, contact Therman Law Offices now to learn more about whether you are entitled to compensation.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving an ATV accident. The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she was hurt while in an accident that happened in Henderson County on a levee. The driver passed through a field, across a road, and onto the levee. While she was driving along the top of the levee, she drove through a section that had washed out the previous year and crashed.

The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant driver of the ATV owed her damages for driving the ATV negligently. She also included as defendants the people who owned the levee and who were responsible for maintaining it. The owners were two brothers who maintained roughly 2,000 acres of farmland. In response to her complaint, the defendants moved for summary judgment. They cited section 11-1427(g) of the Illinois Vehicle Code, also known as the ATV Statute, and said that it precluded premises liability. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants and agreed that the plaintiff’s claim was barred according to the statute.

Continue reading

In some serious accidents, the victim passes away before they are able to bring a lawsuit to recover damages. This is not only an incredibly traumatic experience for the victim’s loved ones, but it also leaves a number of questions regarding what happens to the lawsuit and whether justice will still be served. At Therman Law Offices, we represent the victims of Chicago car accidents and assist them with recovering the compensation that they deserve. Our team of legal professionals will make sure that you understand your rights and that your family has the financial recovery it deserves.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered whether a lower court properly granted summary judgment in a case involving a plaintiff who passed away due to circumstances unrelated to the accident while his lawsuit was pending. The plaintiff alleged that the other driver swerved into his lane of travel and sideswiped his vehicle. The plaintiff and the defendant were the only witnesses to the accident. The plaintiff passed away after the case was filed, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the plaintiff’s representative could not prove negligence because there were no other witnesses.

Although an officer reported to the accident, by the time he arrived, both vehicles involved in the accident had been moved to the side of the road. As a result, the defendant argued that the officer was unable to testify to shed light on whether the defendant was negligent. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff’s deposition could not be used as evidence. Under an Illinois discovery statute, the party seeking to use a deposition transcript as evidence when a witness has passed away must show that there are “rare, but compelling, circumstances” that justify the use of the deposition.

Continue reading

If you lost a loved one in a personal injury accident, you might be entitled to compensation for your damages and expenses. It can be terribly overwhelming to think about pursuing legal action during such a traumatic time, which is why consulting with a lawyer can be a great idea. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago wrongful death lawyers are standing by to assist you with learning more about your legal rights following the tragic and sudden loss of a loved one. We will make sure that you understand every step of the process and help you fight to secure the settlement or judgment that you deserve.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving a wrongful death claim. The decedent tragically lost his life in a car accident on Illinois Route 114 in Momence. The driver of the vehicle that struck the decedent’s vehicle had left her friend’s house and was intoxicated at the time of the crash. The plaintiff, a representative of the decedent’s estate, brought claims against the driver and the friends, alleging that they were negligent in allowing the driver to leave the premises while visibly intoxicated.

The plaintiff amended the complaint a number of times and eventually included a claim based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, also known as vicarious liability, alleging that the defendants were liable for the driver’s negligence because the driver was acting in the capacity as an agent for the defendants at the time of the crash. The plaintiff alleged that the driver was acting as an employee of the defendants when the crash occurred. The driver had assisted the friends with unloading feed for their horses before spending two hours consuming alcoholic beverages at the property.

Continue reading

If you are involved in a battery, you can bring a claim against the person who injured you for compensation. This civil claim is separate and independent from any criminal liability that the person may face as a result of the altercation. A battery can be an incredibly traumatic and damaging experience. Many victims are hesitant to pursue action because they want to put the painful situation behind them. Contacting a Chicago personal injury lawyer and seeking representation can help you alleviate some of the stress of pursuing the compensation that you deserve from the person who hurt you. Contact Therman Law Offices now to set up a time to speak to an experienced personal injury lawyer.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case where the plaintiff was a student at Chicago State University who alleged that a professor engaged in a battery against her. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the professor was yelling at the students to be quiet when the plaintiff was singled out. The professor began to eject her from the class by dragging the desk in which she was sitting several feet. Eventually, the professor grabbed the plaintiff by her coat and arm and dragged her out of the classroom. When the plaintiff attempted to reenter the room, the professor blocked her. He then returned to her desk and kicked her personal items onto the floor.

The plaintiff alleged battery against the professor as well as three additional counts against the board of trustees of the university. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims and that the defendants were protected under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, which limits the situations in which a state entity can be sued for civil claims. The lower court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the action.

Continue reading

Elevator accidents can be terrifying for the victim. When we get into an elevator, we rarely expect some kind of serious malfunction to occur. But when it does, we can bring a personal injury claim to recover compensation for the damages that we may have suffered as a result of the accident. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago personal injury lawyers are standing by to help you learn more about the legal system and your potential rights.

In a recent appellate opinion, the Illinois Court of Appeal Discussed an elevator accident involving a man who was working at a construction site. He was in a freight elevator when another passenger pushed the “door close” button causing the door to come down and hit him. The door knocked his hardhat off and caused him to suffer a laceration on his forehead that resulted in a scar. He also had to leave work early due to neck pain.

The man filed a lawsuit against a number of parties including the building owner, the building manager, and the company that designed the elevator. In his complaint, he argued that the elevator did not have a signal that alerted passengers that the gate was closing. He also alleged in his complaint that the defendants had already ordered and received an electronic sensor that would have provided this.

Continue reading

Wrongful death accidents are an unfortunate part of driving. This includes any situation where a driver or passenger in a vehicle loses his or her life because another driver did not use the right level of care behind the wheel. In some cases, a wrongful death action can even involve a mass transit provider or common carrier that did not exercise due care in transporting its passengers. This raises unique issues about how you must go about asserting your claim for damages after losing a loved one. If you find yourself in a similar situation, reach out to a diligent Chicago wrongful death lawyer to help you understand your rights during this stressful and chaotic time.

In a recent appellate decision, the Illinois Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case involving a man who lost his life as a passenger on a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus. The plaintiff died from prolonged alcohol toxicity. The administrator of the decedent’s estate brought a negligence action against the CTA and other individuals involved with the accident, including the bus driver. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to call for medical help to assist the defendant, failing to check his condition, and failing to take reasonable action to render first aid, among other things. It also alleged that the CTA should have trained its employees in how to deal with situations where a passenger is experiencing medical distress.

The CTA responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on the basis that the defendants did not owe the decedent a duty of care because the decedent didn’t show any signs of medical distress or tell anyone that he needed assistance. It also asserted that the decedent’s level of intoxication did not create a duty because they did not owe a duty to every passenger to assess their physical condition before boarding or while riding the bus. It also pointed out that imposing this level of duty on the CTA in regard to every passenger would create an unduly burdensome situation and would be impractical to carry out in reality. The CTA also provided two videos showing footage of the decedent on the bus for the purpose of showing that he was not displaying signs of distress.

Continue reading

Intentional emotional distress is a claim that is meant to compensate the plaintiff for the impact of the mental anguish and suffering that he or she experiences after a personal injury accident. There are specific things that a plaintiff must prove to receive compensation for this claim, and it is important to pay attention to the requirements. Unlike a physical injury such as a broken bone, mental suffering can be hard to diagnose and establish. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago personal injury attorneys are standing by to assist you with making sure that you receive the outcome that you deserve.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a claim in which the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Under Illinois law, to establish that the defendant engaged in the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant’s conduct was extreme or outrageous; (2) the defendant intended to cause the severe emotional distress or knew there was a high likelihood that it would result; and (3) the conduct did, in fact, cause the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.

The plaintiff alleged that he pled his claim sufficiently in the complaint. The plaintiff was a professor who filed a complaint against the university alleging that he suffered the intentional infliction of emotional distress over a seven-year period. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, stating that he did not plead enough facts to establish a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Continue reading

During trial, there comes a moment when the court must decide which instructions to give the jury before it begins its deliberations. These instructions are what the jury will use to determine whether the defendant is liable to the plaintiff and how much compensation the plaintiff is entitled to receive. This can be one of the most pivotal moments of your case and an important reason to consult with a seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyer. At Therman Law Offices, our team is available to help you navigate the civil court system and to ensure that your rights are protected.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal heard an appeal in a case involving the death of a woman who sought treatment at a hospital. A major issue in the case was whether the court gave the right instructions to the jury. The plaintiff filed a negligence and wrongful action against hospital professionals alleging that they caused the death of her mother. The complaint included a number of causes of action. At the close of evidence, the court instructed the jury on a number of aspects including a rule about missing evidence. The plaintiff requested a number of jury instructions including an instruction on the loss of chance doctrine and missing evidence related to a document that the plaintiff alleged was missing. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s request to include both instructions.

The jury ultimately found for the defendants and the plaintiff appealed, alleging that the court’s failure to include the loss of chance instruction was a reversible error. The appellate court agreed with the plaintiff. The appellate court stated that the plaintiff offered enough evidence to support the use of the loss of chance doctrine and that the matter should have been put before the jury to evaluate. Additionally, the jury instruction that the plaintiff submitted to the court was simple, brief, impartial, and non-argumentative. Because the court failed to give this instruction, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff was denied the opportunity for a fair trial and reversed the entry of judgment for the defendants.

Continue reading

Personal injury lawsuits often involve claims of negligence around car accidents and slip and falls. But they can also include situations in which someone failed to exercise reasonable care and skill when providing supervision for someone else. At Therman Law Offices, our seasoned team of Chicago personal injury lawyers is prepared to assist you with exploring your potential claim for damages against the person or entity responsible for your injury or loss.

A recent opinion from the Illinois Court of Appeal demonstrates a situation in which a care provider was accused of negligence in failing to render appropriate care. A minor died at the age of 17 years old from a heroin overdose the day after she was treated for a heroin overdose and discharged from an emergency department. Her mother, acting as administrator of her daughter’s estate, brought a claim against the emergency department, the operator of the department, and a number of care providers, alleging that they were negligent in not admitting or holding her daughter after her first overdose.

The mother appealed a judgment from a jury in favor of the defendants on the basis that the lower court abused its discretion in granting a number of pre-trial motions regarding the evidence to be offered at trial. The mother also alleged that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and the lower court should have granted her motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or granted a new trial. The defendants alleged that the pre-trial evidentiary motions were appropriately granted because the plaintiff’s retained emergency department expert was not qualified to testify about the psychiatric standard of care and because the plaintiff did not disclose the opinion that the expert intended to offer at trial. The appellate court denied the plaintiff’s motions and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the defense.

Continue reading

If you are injured in a car accident, you may be entitled to compensation from the persons or companies who are responsible for your injuries. To protect your right to recovery, it is incredibly important that you follow all the applicable procedural rules governing how and where you should file your claim. This includes ensuring that you file the claim in the right court. The seasoned Chicago car accident attorneys at Therman Law Offices are prepared to assist you with investigating your claim and ensuring that you follow all the right rules in seeking compensation.

In a recent appellate opinion, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the defendants challenged a lawsuit alleging personal injuries on the basis that the court in which the lawsuit was filed did not have jurisdiction over them. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was struck in a supermarket parking lot by a vehicle being driven by the defendant’s employee. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. It alleged that the plaintiff’s accident happened in Indiana, that the employee was an Indiana resident, and that the employer was a Massachusetts corporation with only limited operations in Illinois.

The plaintiff challenged this by alleging that the defendants, although not residents of Illinois, had operations within the state giving the court jurisdiction over them. Specifically, it argued that the company had availed itself of Illinois’ stream of commerce for a period of years by operating transit points at two locations in Illinois while delivering and picking up products over 35,000 times at over 140 locations. The lower court eventually entered an order without conducting a hearing or oral argument denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed.

Continue reading

Contact Information