Personal Injury

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.

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.

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.

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.

May 29, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Back Injury Case on Basis of Judicial Estoppel

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

May 14, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Discusses Statute of Limitations Discovery Rule in Traumatic Brain Injury Case

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

March 16, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal with Prejudice of Wrongful Death Action Based on Voluntary Undertaking Theory

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

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.

January 27, 2020

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Motion to Dismiss for Manufacturer in Fatal Plane Crash Case

by Therman Law Offices, LTD.

When a devastating accident takes place, one of the most frustrating aspects of trying to secure the compensation that you deserve is determining which defendants are liable. There are countless different procedural rules that apply to personal injury cases and certain steps that must be taken to ensure that the right parties are in the lawsuit. Some potential defendants will try to make things as difficult as possible to avoid being named in a lawsuit or to be dismissed from the lawsuit once they are named. The dedicated Chicago personal injury lawyers of Therman Law Offices are prepared to help you assert your rights and obtain the fair treatment that you deserve.

The Illinois Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in a case involving a plane crash that resulted in the deaths of seven men during April 2015. The estates of the decedents each filed a claim for negligence in Illinois against the maker of component parts for the aircraft and other related defendants. The manufacturer filed a motion seeking dismissal from the lawsuit claiming that the court did not have jurisdiction over the company.

The director of operations for the manufacturer described the company as a Texas limited liability partnership that engages in overhauling engines and selling aircraft parts. It advertises its services and products in several aviation magazines and is registered to do business in Texas. It performed most of its work in Texas and Illinois customers accounted for roughly 1% of its total revenues. The director admitted that the company sold component parts to an aviation company in Illinois and that between 2012 and 2016 it sold component parts to several other companies in Illinois.