Chicago Injury Lawyers Blog

February 20, 2021

Illinois Court of Appeal Discusses Dismissal of Civil Claim Involving Injured Worker

If you were hurt at work, there is a chance that you may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. In some situations, you may also have a personal injury claim against the entity responsible for your damages. Knowing which route to pursue and the best way to protect your legal rights can be overwhelming. Many people who are injured at work are preoccupied with healing their injuries and dealing with the financial impact that comes with it. If you are curious about pursuing workers’ compensation benefits or damages in a Chicago personal injury claim, you can speak with someone at Therman Law Offices about your legal options and how to pursue them.

In a recent case, the Illinois Court of Appeal discussed a situation in which a worker was injured while on the job. The defendant in the case was the injured worker’s employer. The worker was employed by a subsidiary of the employer that provided concrete services. The employer had a workers’ compensation insurance policy that provided coverage for its employees as well as employees of the concrete company. The employer entered into a contract with a property owner to perform construction at the site. The plaintiff hurt this back while working on the construction project. He filed a workers’ compensation claim and received $76,000 to cover his medical bills as well as other expenses.

Then, the plaintiff filed a claim against his employer in civil court seeking additional damages and claiming that the employer was liable for his injuries. The employer filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was barred. Illinois law states that a worker’s sole remedy for compensation following an on-the-job injury is to pursue benefits through a workers’ compensation claim. The lower court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the complaint.

February 5, 2021

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Ruling for Injured Plaintiff In Auto Insurance Coverage Dispute

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

Insurance policies are supposed to provide us with some sense of security should we get hurt in a car accident. Unfortunately, insurance companies often resort to playing games or trying to interpret their policies in a way that benefits them the best. While you are suffering from your injuries and trying to get back on your feet, it can be hard to take the time to read through your policy and understand whether you are getting a fair deal. One way to protect your rights and to make sure you get the payout you deserve is to work with a Chicago personal injury lawyer. If you are involved in an auto insurance dispute or were hurt in a car accident, call Therman Law Offices now.

In a recent case, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered whether an insured’s auto policy required the insurance company to pay her benefits when she was hurt while riding in someone else’s vehicle. The driver of the vehicle in which she was riding hit another car in an intersection. The plaintiff maintained an auto insurance policy that also included uninsured motorist (UM) coverage up to $25,000 for bodily injury or death per person up to $50,000 per accident.

The insurance company filed a claim for a declaratory judgment. This type of claim asks the court to issue a ruling that decides who is right in a legal conflict, such as a contract dispute. The lower court eventually concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to coverage under her UM policy even though she was not riding in her vehicle at the time of the accident.

January 13, 2021

Illinois Court of Appeal Discusses Liability of Landowner in ATV Personal Injury Accident Case

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

January 7, 2021

Illinois Court of Appeal Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendant in Car Accident Case Where the Plaintiff Passed Away Before Trial

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

December 12, 2020

Illinois Court of Appeal Upholds Summary Judgment for Defendants in Drunk Driving Fatality Case Involving Vicarious Liability Doctrine

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

December 3, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Battery Claim Against University Professor

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

November 18, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendants in Elevator Injury Accident Case

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

November 11, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Wrongful Death Action Involving Intoxicated Passenger on Public Bus

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

October 17, 2020

Illinois Court of Appeal Reverses Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

October 7, 2020

Illinois Court of Appeal Discusses the Role of Jury Instructions in Wrongful Death Appeal

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.