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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

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

by

As winter approaches, Chicago property owners should review the rules that apply to maintain a safe property for pedestrians, guests, and business invitees. Under Illinois law, a property owner does not have a duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from his or her property. This standard may seem straightforward, but many slip and fall cases involve disputes about whether the accumulation was natural or unnatural, resulting from a modification or improvement that the property owner made. Our diligent team of Chicago premises liability attorneys is prepared to help you fight for your right to compensation after an avoidable slip and fall accident.

Recently, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a case in which the plaintiff’s slip and fall lawsuit was dismissed for failure to prove that the defendant created an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow. The plaintiff argued that this rule did not apply to her situation because she slipped on paint that was on top of a handicap symbol in a parking space in a parking lot that became unreasonably slippery, according to her complaint. In support of this assertion, the plaintiff provided an affidavit from an expert witness. The defendants moved to strike the affidavit, which the trial court granted on the basis that it was inadmissible and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On review, the appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court should not have struck the plaintiff’s expert witness affidavit in its entirety or entered summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of whether the natural accumulation rule applied. Based on the evidence in the record, the appellate concluded that the jury could have found in favor of plaintiff’s theory that the handicap parking lot symbol was unreasonably slippery. The appellate court found that the natural accumulation rule did not apply to this situation because the main issue is whether the symbol was unreasonably slippery when it became wet regardless of whether the moisture resulted from a natural or unnatural accumulation.

Continue reading

by

If you live in Chicago, you know that ice and snow are a serious threat to safety. Countless Illinois slip and fall accidents happen each year when property owners fail to take responsible action to mitigate the threat of injuries from accumulating ice and snow. If you were hurt on another person’s property as a result of their negligence, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact us today to start learning about your potential lawsuit.

Recently, an Illinois appellate court decided a case in which the plaintiff claimed that he suffered injuries when he slipped on ice on a sidewalk outside of his residence. He sued the homeowner’s association and the snow removal contractor that serviced the condo complex. Under Illinois law, a plaintiff in a slip and fall case based on ice or snow must show that there was an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow or that the ice and snow accumulated unnaturally as the result of something that the property owner was doing.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the ice and snow on which the plaintiff slipped was the result of natural accumulation and that they had not done anything to cause a greater amount of ice or snow to accumulate. The homeowner’s association also alleged that it did not have notice of water or ice pooling on the sidewalk area where the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff responded saying that he was suing not based on the theory of unnatural accumulation of ice and snow, but on the basis that the drainage system suffered from a defective design that resulted in an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow.

Continue reading

by

The workers’ compensation system is designed to provide benefits for injured workers if the injury occurred in the course and scope of the worker’s employment. This can create legal issues regarding whether an employee should seek compensation from an employer through the claims process or in civil court. One area where issues tend to arise the most is situations involving temp agencies and other third-party employers. Our seasoned team of Chicago work injury lawyers is ready to help you ensure that you pursue your right to compensation in the appropriate way.

Recently, an appellate court considered a case in which an injured man filed a civil claim against a manufacturing company seeking compensation for personal injuries he allegedly sustained while working at the manufacturing company’s premises through a temp agency. The plaintiff was reportedly operating a forklift when it fell from inside of the tractor-trailer as the tractor-trailer moved away from the loading dock.

The plaintiff originally filed a workers’ compensation claim against the manufacturing company, but it instructed the worker to file a workers’ compensation claim against the temp agency. The worker filed this claim and received benefits from the temp agency.

Continue reading