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

Truck accidents can happen on the road, causing serious personal injuries and other damages. But they can also cause injuries when the operator or other professional attempts to use the truck. The vehicle does not always have to be in motion for there to be a risk of injury or some negligent conduct. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago truck accident lawyers are ready to help you seek the compensation that you deserve after an unnecessary and painful truck accident.

A recent case from the Illinois Court of Appeal discusses a situation involving a dump truck. The victim worked for a trucking company as a driver. While he was working on a dump truck leased from another company that was loaded with mulch for a delivery. He climbed on top of the vehicle and lowered himself into the trailer so that he could rake the mulch and level it inside the trailer. At the time he climbed down, he noticed that surfaces of the trailer were wet. When he finished raking and leveling, he attempted to exit the trailer by using the ladder on the side of the trailer when he fell. He landed on his feet and experienced a sharp pain in his back. He informed his employer, completed the delivery, returned to the truck yard, and prepared the next day’s delivery. He used the stairs one more time without incident.

The worker and his wife filed a lawsuit against multiple parties including the trucking company and seller of the truck alleging that the defendants were strictly liable for his injuries and negligent in failing to provide safe access to and from the trailer. They also alleged that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings and safety measures and failed to perform sufficient product testing to ensure the trailer’s safety.

Continue reading

A common issue that arises in claims involving nursing homes and other care facilities is whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable. As Chicago nursing home negligence lawyers, we have seen firsthand how an arbitration agreement’s applicability can cause serious confusion and headaches for a family who has endured the loss of their loved one due to a facility’s negligence. At Therman Law Offices, we are prepared to help you determine whether you are entitled to compensation and explore the best route for asserting your rights against the nursing home that is responsible for the harm.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal decided a case involving a dispute regarding an arbitration agreement and its enforceability. A woman died while in the care of a nursing home facility, and her estate brought a claim against the facility, claiming negligence and wrongful death. The defendants responded to the action by filing a motion to compel arbitration and seeking dismissal of the civil claim.

The lower court initially granted the motion but later granted the estate’s motion to reconsider. It also allowed the estate to file an affidavit from a doctor, stating that the decedent would probably not have understood the arbitration agreement that she was required to sign upon admittance to the facility. The affidavit suggested that the decedent was under the influence of certain medications that would have made it difficult for her to understand what was happening, due to the side effects that they caused. The defendants appealed.

Continue reading

Uninsured motorist coverage is supposed to help us cover the unforeseen costs and expenses associated with a car accident, but receiving the benefit of your policy can be fraught with headaches. Insurance companies don’t always have your best interests in mind following an accident and when considering an insurance claim. As seasoned Chicago car accident lawyers, Therman Law Offices has substantial experience dealing with legal situations involving insurance companies. We will fight zealously to ensure that your insurer treats you fairly and that you receive the treatment that you deserve following a painful and stressful motor vehicle accident.

In a recent appellate opinion, the Illinois Court of Appeal was asked to consider a case where the plaintiff, an insurance company, sought declaratory judgment regarding whether it was required to provide uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage to the defendant, it’s insured. The defendant had a UIM policy, and she sought coverage for injuries she sustained during a motor vehicle accident that another driver who did not have an auto insurance policy caused. The policy included a provision requiring the insured to cooperate with the insurer when asked to assist in giving or securing evidence. This included providing proof of loss forms when requested. It also stated that there would be no coverage provided to the extent that it would benefit any workers’ compensation coverage.

The defendant was injured while working as a driving instructor for a trucking company. She was riding as a passenger at the time of the crash. The employer’s insurer sent a letter stating that its policy did not provide coverage for bodily injuries sustained by employees. The plaintiff concluded that coverage might not be appropriate, given the work-related implications of the crash. It later requested confirmation from the defendant that no workers’ compensation insurance was being issued for the loss. The defendant sent a letter from the employer’s insurer. The plaintiff sent another letter saying it needed to do more investigation regarding whether the other parties in the accident had insurance.

Continue reading

Construction workers face some of the most serious and deadly accidents in their line of work. Whether it’s dangerous machinery, faulty scaffolding, or exposure to chemicals, there are countless ways that a construction site can turn dangerous. Although many instances of construction workers becoming injured are handled in the Illinois workers’ compensation system, there are some instances where the conduct is so egregious that the injured worker may be able to file a claim in civil court. As seasoned Chicago construction accident lawyers representing Illinois victims, Therman Law Offices is prepared to assist you with evaluating your potential lawsuit.

A recent case discusses a situation where the worker was injured at a construction site. He was asked by his employer to apply sealant at the bottom of an effluent chamber settling tank. He was required to use two ladders that the team constructed to reach the bottom of the 29-foot tall tank. The ladder system required the worker to step from one ladder over to the other ladder to reach the bottom of the tank. The day before the accident happened, it rained and there was three feet of standing water at the bottom of the tank requiring the worker to wear rubber boots. When he pivoted from one ladder to the next ladder, he fell from the top of the tank 29-feet down to the bottom. He sustained severe traumatic brain injuries and broken bones.

The injured worker’s wife sued his employer on his behalf for negligence including willful and wanton misconduct, and loss of consortium. She pointed to a series of rules and regulations from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, which governed the project, that dictated how worksites should be maintained and the safety provisions that should be followed. The complaint ultimately alleged that the configuration of ladders and the failure to maintain a safe, dry worksite violated the regulations and the governing documents for the project.

Continue reading

Arbitration agreements often come in situations involving personal injury lawsuits. Many people do not take the time to read what they are signing and, in most situations, they do not have an option to negotiate the terms of the deal. One of the most common places that arbitration agreements arise involves rehabilitation facilities or nursing homes. If you or a loved one was injured in one of these facilities and you signed an arbitration agreement, it is critical that you speak with a diligent Chicago personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

A recent case from the Illinois Court of Appeal examined an arbitration agreement signed by a person who was admitted to a rehabilitation facility. The plaintiff alleged that he fell out of bed as a result of the negligence of the facility and that he suffered injuries as a result. In response to the lawsuit, the defendant facility filed a motion to dismiss and pointed to the arbitration agreement that the plaintiff signed. The agreement stated that the parties would arbitrate any claims of negligence arising from the plaintiff’s stay at the facility. The facility also filed a motion to compel arbitration. It also provided affidavits from two employees stating that the plaintiff signed the contract and that the plaintiff appeared to be of sound mind when discussing the agreement and signing them.

In response to the motion to compel arbitration, the plaintiff alleged that the agreement was unenforceable because there was no evidence showed that the facility was a party to the arbitration agreement. The facility had undergone administrative changes and a name change since the plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement. The plaintiff also argued that it was unenforceable on the basis that it was signed under duress and due to the unfair bargaining power between the parties.

Continue reading

When multiple parties are involved in a car accident, the determination of who is liable and to what extent can cause serious headaches. Illinois has specific laws that govern issues involving joint tortfeasor liability that determine when co-defendants are liable for the conduct of other co-defendants. As dedicated Chicago personal injury lawyers, the seasoned trial lawyers of Therman Law Offices will ensure that you receive the full amount of competition you deserve from each party who caused your harm.

A recent case interpreted specific provisions of the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act. The two defendants in the case were vicariously liable for injuries that the plaintiff sustained in a multi-vehicle accident. The first defendant was a logistics company and a freight broker that negotiated contracts with licensed motor carriers to transport goods. The defendant entered into an agreement with a grocery store to arrange for the shipment of produce. The federally licensed motor carrier contacted to make the transport was the second defendant in the action. During transport of a shipment of potatoes on Interstate 55, the driver noticed vehicles stopped ahead but she was not able to stop the tractor-trailer in time resulting in a multi-vehicle crash resulting in two fatalities and one seriously injured party.

The driver admitted negligence in the resulting legal action that the survivors’ and victim brought against the parties. The trucking company admitted negligence along with the driver while the logistics company denied liability. It claimed that it could not be held vicariously liable for the driver’s actions under the respondeat superior doctrine because there was not enough evidence to prove that the driver was acting as the agent of the logistics company. Under this doctrine, an employer is vicariously liable for the tortious acts that his or her employee or agent commits during the course and scope of employment.

Continue reading

If you are injured in a Chicago slip and fall accident, you may be entitled to compensation from the person or entity that was in charge of maintaining the area where the accident took place. This is true even if it was a public area under the management of a municipality. Suing a city or other entity can be a challenging and confusing process; however, due to the many different laws that apply. At Therman Law Offices, we are prepared to assist you with ensuring that you receive the compensation that you deserve.

In a recent case, a woman was reportedly injured when she stepped out of her parked vehicle and walked toward the front of the car, where she claimed she stepped into a pothole and twisted her left ankle. The pothole was roughly five feet long, according to a City investigator. The evidence was undisputed that the woman had parked in a no-parking zone that was painted yellow. It contained a fire hydrant. The evidence also established that part of her vehicle and the area where the pothole was located was not within the yellow no-parking zone.

In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the City owed her compensation because it was negligent in failing to maintain the area where the pothole was located and that it was responsible for her injuries as a direct result. The City moved for summary judgment claiming that it did not owe her a duty to maintain the area that was painted yellow to prohibit parking. An Illinois state law prohibited parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. The City also alleged that her vehicle was nearly 16 feet long and that because she parked partially in the no-parking zone, it did not owe her a duty.

Continue reading

Most people have experienced some type of trip and fall in their lives. In most cases, the tumble can be harmless leaving you with a few bumps and bruises. In others, it can result in devastating injuries and even permanent disabilities. Although some trips are attributable to unforeseen circumstances, there are some situations where the property owner of the pace where the trip and fall took place was careless in maintaining the property. In this situation, the victim may have a claim to recover compensation for his or her trip and fall accident. Our dedicated team of Chicago premises liability attorneys is standing by to assist you with determining whether you are owed compensation.

The Illinois appellate court considered a claim recently involving a man who reportedly tripped through the doorway of a pantry where he was entering and exiting to retrieve donated food items. The plaintiff sued the food bank seeking damages for the lacerations and scarring that resulted to his face after the fall. He alleged that the owners of the pantry were negligent in maintaining the premises particularly when it came to the doorway. Plaintiff had been walking across a landing and down a set of stairs to a basement that housed the food pantry. Roughly 100 other people were waiting to accept food. The plaintiff asked for a box to help him carry his items, which he estimated to be roughly 20-pounds in weight. He held the box in front of his stomach with both hands as he walked.

The plaintiff alleged that he began speaking to someone who was holding the door open as he was leaving the pantry. He said this distracted him and that as he crossed the threshold, he felt a sudden drop and lost his balance, causing him to fall to the left.

Continue reading

A common issue that arises after a motor vehicle accident is whether the parties involved in the accident have insurance policies that provide coverage for physical and property damage. In some situations, this is easy to determine but in others questions may arise regarding whether a policy’s coverage extends to a driver or victim. As seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers we are ready to assist you with protecting your rights after a car accident. We will assist with all aspects of the matter including negotiating with insurance companies on your behalf.

A recent case explored the limits of coverage for an insurance policy in a one-car accident. The accident involved a non-owned, uninsured vehicle. The passenger of the accident died as a result of his injuries. The passenger would occasionally live rent-free with his father’s ex-wife at the time of the crash and had been living there for six months. The ex-wife never officially adopted the passenger.

The ex-wife had three insurance policies that provided uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Two of the policies also provided coverage for medical expenses up to $10,000. The special administrator of the passenger’s estate asserted a claim for medical payment coverage and uninsured motorist benefits under the policies. The insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a statement that the decedent was not entitled to coverage benefits because he did not meet the definition of a “resident relative” under the policy provisions. He was not related to the insured by blood, marriage, or adoption on the date of the accident and did not primarily reside with her, according to their view.

Continue reading

When you are injured on someone else’s property, you can bring a personal injury action against the owner of the property to recover compensation for your injuries and damages. In cases where the injury takes place on a publicly maintained property, however, different issues may arise regarding liability and the evidence that you have to establish to show that the municipality or government entity failed to use due care in maintaining the property. At Therman Law Offices, we are prepared to help you with your Chicago premises liability claim after a careless governmental entity failed to protect you from preventable danger.

In a recent case, the plaintiff appealed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago in her lawsuit, where she alleged that the City failed to maintain one of its streets in a reasonably safe condition causing her to slip and fall into a large hole. The plaintiffs alleged that summary judgment was not proper because the plaintiff was an intended and permitted user of the street where the fall took place.

According to the City, it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care to maintain the street in a safe condition because the plaintiff was not a permitted user of the street. It argued that its duty to maintain property was limited by the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, which provides that a plaintiff must be a legally intended and permitted user of a property before the government entity can be subject to liability for any resulting injuries. It further alleged that the plaintiff was parked illegally under state law because she parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant and that her vehicle was in a yellow-painted no-parking area.

Continue reading