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

Although many personal injury accidents involve two private citizens, some claims involve a municipality. Whether it involves the unsafe design of a roadway or the failure to provide warnings about dangerous conditions on property under government control, claims against municipalities are common. There are different rules that apply when someone is suing a city or other local agency alleging that it engaged in negligent conduct and that he or she suffered harm as a result. There are some situations in which a municipality will be granted immunity from suit and it is critical to understand how these laws may apply to your claim. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago personal injury lawyers are standing by and prepared to help you determine whether you have a valid claim against a local agency for your injuries.

A recent appellate opinion explores government immunity in negligence lawsuits. The plaintiff filed a claim alleging that he was injured when the front tire of his bike went into a hole created by a broken grating bar on a bridge in Chicago. The cyclist was traveling on the paved roadway of a designated bicycling route during morning traffic when the accident occurred. The complaint that he filed against the city alleged that it was negligent in failing to repair the hole and by making the bridge a part of the designated bicycle route even though the bridge was unreasonably dangerous. In general, the Illinois Court of Claims Act and the Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act apply to negligence claims brought against the government and its employees. In general, a claim against a local government must be based on willful and wanton conduct and cannot simply be based on carelessness or simple negligence.

In response to the complaint, the city alleged that the bridge was reasonably safe, that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent, and that the city was protected from lawsuits regarding its design of bicycle routes through the government tort immunity laws in Illinois. After hearing evidence from witnesses and experts, the jury concluded that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, that the city was entitled to immunity, and that the city was not negligent in its design of the bike path, including the bridge. The plaintiff appealed the lower court’s denial of a motion for a new trial among other allegations of error.

Continue reading

If you are involved in an auto accident, you are probably wondering how your insurance policy works and whether you will receive coverage from your insurer and any other insurers involved in the crash. In addition to pursuing a civil claim for damages from the person who caused your injuries, you can file an insurance claim to seek coverage benefits. This may sound straightforward, but insurance companies are notorious for hiding the ball and being unfair to insureds. At Therman Law Offices, we are available to assist you with all aspects of your Chicago car accident including ensuring that you receive the insurance coverage that you deserve in a timely fashion.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action asking the court to interpret an auto insurance policy that was issued to her and in effect at the time she was involved in an accident with an underinsured motorist. The total damages that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the accident was $250,000. The driver of the vehicle that caused the crash had a policy with a limit of $100,000. It paid this limit to the plaintiff without contest or litigation. The plaintiff then filed a claim with her own insurer for payment of underinsured motorist benefits. The limit for her Underinsured Motorist (UIM) policy was $250,000 as well as medical payments of $100,000. Her insurer paid the full medical payments coverage limit.

Next, the plaintiff’s insurer offset the $100,000 that the at-fault driver’s insurer paid from its $250,000 UIM limit and offset the $100,000 of medical payments it provided to the payment. It provided her with a check for $50,000. The plaintiff declined the check on the basis that it had no right to offset the medical payments against her total damages rather than the limits of liability. The parties both filed motions for summary judgment in the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action and the court ruled in favor of the insurer. The plaintiff argued that the insurer improperly set off the medical payment benefits that it paid to her against the $250,000 UIM policy limit rather than her total damages of $350,000. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

When you are injured in a motor vehicle accident, you may be able to receive insurance benefits from the policies involved in the crash including your insurer policy and the at-fault driver’s policy. This can sound like a straightforward process, but all too often an insurance company fails to play by the rules. Also, there are a number of rules that apply to your insurer’s ability to recoup any benefits paid to you from a settlement or judgment entered in your favor in a corresponding civil case. The seasoned Chicago car accident lawyers at Therman Law Offices are available to assist you with understanding your right to insurance coverage following a car accident.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiff appealed two orders of summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, an insurance company. The plaintiff had filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment asking the court to interpret an insurance policy that was issued to the defendant and active at the time the parties got into an accident. The plaintiff suffered injuries when she was hit by an underinsured motorist. Her damages totaled $350,000.

The insurer for the at-fault motorist provided the policy limits of $100,000. The plaintiff then applied for underinsured motorist coverage with her own insurance company to recover the outstanding damages, including a $250,000 coverage limit and $100,000 in medical payments. Her insurer provided the $100,000 medical payment coverage. It then offset the $100,000 paid by the at-fault driver’s insurance company and the $100,000 in medical payments to conclude that the plaintiff was entitled to $50,000. The plaintiff declined the offer and filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment from the court explaining the proper interpretation of the policy.

Continue reading

When you suffer an injury as the result of the negligence or recklessness of a government actor, there are different rules that apply to how you must proceed with your potential personal injury claim. Illinois law recognizes government immunity from certain tort claims through the Local Governmental Tort Immunity Act. If you or a loved one was injured as the result of a government actor, it can be incredibly difficult to understand how this statute may impact your right to recovery. The seasoned Chicago personal injury lawyers at Therman Law Offices are prepared to assist you with understanding your potential rights.

Recently, The Illinois Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a case against a local government entity alleging that it was responsible for the death of multiple parties in a collision that happened at a railroad crossing. The facts of the dispute are as follows. A woman was driving four of her children to a local Halloween parade. She was approaching a railroad crossing on Sixth Street following a line of traffic approaching the parade grounds. As she was crossing the tracks, traffic stopped suddenly and the railroad crossing initiated. The gates closed and the woman was unaware of an approaching train. She attempted to drive forward away from the tracks when the car was struck by an eastbound freight train traveling 46 miles per hour. Only one occupant of the vehicle survived the collision.

The administrator of the decedents’ estate brought a negligence action against multiple parties including the local city. The city filed a motion to dismiss itself from the lawsuit on the grounds that it was immune from tort liability under the statute. The lower court certified the issue of whether the city was immune, which means it asked the appellate court to issue an opinion providing guidance on the issue. The lower court also certified a question asking whether the city owed the woman driving the vehicle and the occupants of her car a duty to keep them safe from hazards associated with the railroad crossing.

Continue reading

When you file a personal injury action or any type of legal claim, it is critical to take the process seriously and to abide by the many procedural and substantive rules that Illinois law requires. Navigating the legal system after suffering a painful injury can be incredibly overwhelming and stressful for an injury victim. The seasoned Chicago personal injury attorneys at Therman Law Offices are available to assist you with exploring your legal rights and securing the compensation that you deserve.

A recent opinion from an Illinois Court of Appeal highlights the importance of following the rules in litigation. In the underlying case, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against a company alleging that he slipped and fell on polystyrene debris that it negligently left on the floor of its warehouse. The plaintiff worked for another company that contracted with the first company to remove and bail the polystyrene. The complaint was filed on December 31, 2015.

Roughly two years later, the plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Arizona. In his paperwork, he did not disclose the pending personal injury lawsuit. A bankruptcy petition is made under oath and subject to perjury laws. These are laws that punish individuals for falsifying information under oath. A few months later, the plaintiff sent the defendant a written offer to settle the personal injury lawsuit in the amount of $1.2 million. Throughout this period, the plaintiff made a number of amendments to his bankruptcy schedules identifying his assets.

In September 2017, the bankruptcy court confirmed a repayment plan for the plaintiff. In December, the defendant in the civil lawsuit filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the claim and that he was judicially estopped from seeking legal action when he failed to disclose it in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The plaintiff eventually amended his bankruptcy schedule to include the personal injury action.

Continue reading

One of the most important considerations in a personal injury case is ensuring that you file your claim before the statute of limitations expires. The statute of limitations is a law that provides a specific timeframe within which a claim must be filed. Illinois law provides different time frames for different types of injuries and follows the discovery rule, which states that the statute of limitations may be tolled until the time when the victim could have reasonably first discovered that he or she suffered injuries due to someone else’s negligence. As dedicated Chicago personal injury attorneys, Therman Law Offices is standing by and ready to assist you with ensuring that you file your claim in compliance with the statute of limitations.

A recently issued appellate opinion in a case involving a football player who suffered a series of traumatic brain injuries highlights how the statute of limitations can be a critical issue in pursuing compensation. The football player filed a disability insurance claim in 2013 after suffering a concussion that ended his career. He also filed a civil claim against helmet manufacturers for the medical conditions that he suffered.

The defendant responded to the claim by saying that it was barred due to the two-year statute of limitations that applies to personal injury actions in Illinois. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was first aware of his injury in 2013 when he filed the disability insurance claim but did not file his personal injury claim until 2017. The lower court agreed with the defendant’s application of the statute of limitations and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff filed an appeal.

Continue reading

Few things are more painful than learning that your loved one suffered abuse and neglect while in a care facility, especially if it leads to his or her unfortunate death. The compassionate and responsive Chicago nursing home abuse lawyers at Therman Law Offices are available to discuss your potential claim against the care facility and/or individuals who are responsible for your loved one’s harm. Although no amount of money can truly make your family whole again after an unnecessary and avoidable loss, it can help ease the financial burden associated with the situation. Contact us today to learn more about your rights and potential options.

In a recent case, the estate of a woman who died at a nursing home as a resident brought a claim against the facility alleging that the operators of the facility were negligent in causing her death and also caused her to suffer before her passing. More specifically, the estate alleged that the facility failed to provide appropriate care and that this resulted in a broken hip.

The defendant responded to the case by filing a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the dispute and attached a copy of the voluntary arbitration agreement that the decedent signed when she was admitted. The estate argued that the woman did not have the appropriate mental capacity to enter into the agreement when she signed it. The court rejected this argument and entered an order compelling arbitration of some of the claims in the case. It stayed the wrongful death claim until the arbitration was completed.

Continue reading

Premises liability accidents involve situations where someone is hurt on another person’s property due to the failure of the owner or operator of the property to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises safe. This means that a premises liability accident can happen virtually anywhere. After you are injured, it can be challenging to know the best way to go about collecting the compensation that you may be owed from a careless owner. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago personal injury lawyers are prepared to help you explore your potential case and assert your rights.

In a recent claim, an Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he came into contact with a wall heater at the defendant’s establishment, a bar located in Pekin. The establishment had a beer garden functioning as an outdoor smoking area. In the smoking area, a gas-powered heater was mounted on the wall with a sign above it that said, “Heater is hot. We are not responsible for your silly ass getting too close!! Thanks, Pottsie’s.”

The plaintiff alleged that he backed up to the heater to get warm and was swaying back and forth as he was standing. He leaned back to scratch his shoulder and the flannel shirt that he was wearing caught fire due to coming into contact with the heater. He suffered injuries as a result of the incident. An EMT who responded to the accident recorded notes indicating that the plaintiff consumed approximately eight beers during the evening on which the accident took place. The plaintiff also admitted being intoxicated on the same evening.

Continue reading

As the warm season approaches, Illinois residents may be considering some of their favorite summer activities. Although many of us engage in things like camping, fishing, swimming, biking, and hiking, few of us realize that these activities can lead to serious and painful personal injuries. The entities that are responsible for maintaining public recreation areas can be held responsible if their failure to maintain the area in a safe and reasonable condition leads to your injury. At Therman Law Offices, our Chicago premises liability lawyers are prepared to help you evaluate your potential claim and to ensure that the responsible entities are held accountable for the financial damages that you deserve.

In a recent claim, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered whether the lower court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice. The complaint alleged that a local park district willfully and wantonly caused the plaintiff’s personal injuries. A complaint dismissed with prejudice means that the parties cannot refile the claim.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they had met with officials at the park to determine whether they would book it for their upcoming wedding. The employees described the camp rules during this meeting, took the plaintiffs on a tour, and explained that they could rent one particular campsite that featured two poles. The employees alleged that the poles could be used for the event, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs rented the campsite and attached a camping hammock to the poles. One of the poles broke and caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries.

Continue reading

In some personal injury accidents, it can be difficult to determine who is at fault and whether multiple parties bear responsibility for the devastating outcome. Life is complicated and many accidents often reflect this in the number of parties that are involved in the incident and who may bear liability. Just because a party was involved in an accident at some point does not mean he or she can be held responsible for the outcome. As seasoned Chicago wrongful death lawyers, we are prepared to help you ensure that you hold each potential responsible party accountable for the losses that you’ve sustained.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a claim in which liability was disputed for the death of an individual due to a traumatic brain injury. the decedent was consuming alcoholic beverages at an event sponsored by his employer. The employer provided free alcoholic beverages and the decedent consumed several until he became intoxicated. In the early morning hours, the employer stopped serving the defendant. He later left the premises and fell suffering a traumatic brain injury that ultimately caused his death.

His father, acting as the independent administrator of his son’s estate and as an individual, brought a claim against the employer alleging that it was responsible for his son’s death. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court granted it. The father refiled the complaint and alleged negligence under a voluntary undertaking negligence theory. The complaint alleged that the defendant owed a duty of care to the decedent because it voluntarily undertook that duty when it ejected the intoxicated decedent from the bar.

Continue reading

Contact Information