Chicago Injury Lawyers Blog

October 17, 2020

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

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.

September 15, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Negligence Claim against Care Providers Following Death of Minor

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

September 9, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Discusses Personal Jurisdiction in Pedestrian Car Accident Case

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

August 13, 2020

Illinois Court of Appeal Reverses Summary Judgment for Insurer in Bicycle Accident Claim Involving Policy Interpretation Dispute

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

There are many different rules that apply to filing a claim with your insurer for a bicycle accident. If you do not follow some of these rules, then you may find that your claim is denied. At Therman Law Offices, we are available to assist Chicago bicycle accident victims with protecting their right to compensation. This includes ensuring that insurers treat you fairly and do not take advantage of you. While you are coping with injuries and stressful disruptions in your life, we will provide you with the responsive and compassionate legal representation that you deserve.

In a recent appellate opinion, the Illinois Court of Appeal considered a claim in which an injury bicyclist filed a claim with his mother’s auto insurance after being struck by a hit and run driver. The insurance company denied the claim on the basis that the son did not follow the requirements of the insurance policy. Specifically, it argued that the policy required someone injured by a hit-and-run driver to report the accident to the police within 24 hours to as soon as practicable. In this situation, the son did not notify the police until 11 days after the accident.

The son filed an action seeking declaratory relief, which is a type of action that asks the court to resolve a particular legal issue or dispute. The plaintiff and the insurer both filed motions for summary judgment. The lower court agreed with the insurer and granted its motion for summary judgment, thereby ending the legal dispute.

August 6, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Slip and Fall Claim for Lack of Constructive Notice to Brewery about Wet Floor

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

A slip and fall accident can have devastating consequences for the victim. When we visit stores, restaurants, and other public establishments, we are trusting that the owner has upheld his or her duty to ensure that the premises is safe for us. When a property owner falls short on this duty, however, the outcome is a dangerous and potentially deadly situation. If you were injured in a Chicago slip and fall accident, the diligent and experienced lawyers at Therman Law Offices are standing by to assist you with exploring your right to compensation.

In a recent case, the Illinois Appellate Court was asked to consider whether a lower court properly granted summary judgment in a premises liability case involving a slip and fall accident. The plaintiff had spent a day drinking beer and repairing vehicles at his auto repair shop before he visited a craft brewery in Evanston. The plaintiff later entered the restroom at the brewery where he slipped on the wet floor and fell resulting in serious injuries to his back. He filed a negligence claim against the brewery along with a loss of consortium claim on behalf of his wife.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff could not show that the defendant had constructive notice that the floor in and around the restroom was wet. Constructive notice means that a reasonable person through routine inspection would have known about the danger and had time to remedy it. This is in contrast to actual notice, which means that the defendant knew that the dangerous condition existed or was occurring.

July 21, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Verdict for City in Bicycle Injury Accident Claim

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

July 8, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Insurer in Dispute about Interpretation of Underinsured Motorist Policy

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

June 19, 2020

Illinois Court of Appeal Issues Opinion Interpreting UIM Policy Benefits in Car Accident Insurance Claim

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

June 8, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Discusses Government Tort Immunity in Multiple Fatality Railroad Crossing Accident Case

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.