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

The theory of vicarious liability states that an employer will be held liable for the tortious actions of its employees that occur during the course and scope of the worker’s employment. This doctrine seems straightforward, but it can be difficult to determine whether this agency relationship existed at the time that a personal injury accident took place. As seasoned Illinois personal injury lawyers, we are prepared to help you evaluate your claim to see whether vicarious liability applies to your situation.

The Illinois Court of Appeal recently considered a claim in which the plaintiff was injured in an accident involving a truck that was driven by an employee of a company. The driver had just delivered a load of cucumbers to a picking plant. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging 27 causes of action including negligent hiring and vicarious liability against the driver’s employee and the company that brokered the delivery.

The plaintiff settled with many of the defendants and the brokerage firm moved for summary judgment. The defendants argued that the agency relationship ended after the driver delivered the load of produce, while the plaintiff alleged that it continued until the driver reached his “home base.” The trial court agreed with the brokerage company and dismissed the claims against it on the basis that the accident occurred after the work that the produce company hired the brokerage firm to do was completed.

Continue reading

Ride-sharing services are becoming a popular way for people to get from one place to another. For all their conveniences, these services are raising many legal issues. Our dedicated team of Chicago personal injury lawyers has assisted numerous Illinois residents in understanding their legal rights in a broad range of situations.

An Illinois court recently considered a case in which two individuals were hit and injured while crossing in a crosswalk. Prior to the accident, they had called a ride-sharing service to pick them up and take them home at around 2am. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver was incompetent and did not know how to get them to their ultimate destination. The driver took several wrong turns and when the plaintiff pointed out that the driver was lost the driver became agitated and asked the plaintiffs to leave the vehicle. The plaintiffs began walking home, which is when they were struck in a crosswalk. The driver of the vehicle was speeding and failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians.

The plaintiffs named several defendants in the complaint, including the ride-sharing service. The company filed a motion to dismiss alleging that being hit by the vehicle in the crosswalk was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the driver’s conduct. The other defendants, including the driver and a cab company, also filed a motion to dismiss on similar grounds. The lower court granted the motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, which means that the plaintiffs could not refile the action.

Continue reading

Workers’ compensation claims can be complex, especially when multiple employers are involved. As seasoned Chicago work injury lawyers, we are prepared to help you ensure that you receive the fair outcome that you deserve after suffering an injury on the job. Recently, the Illinois Appellate Court issued a decision involving an injured worker and multiple employers. The plaintiff was injured while working as a telecommunications specialist when the floor of the hospital room in which he was standing gave way. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the hospital was negligent by failing to provide a safe place to work, failing to inspect the property before inviting the plaintiff to perform work, by causing damage to the flooring, and by failing to warn the plaintiff of the floor’s poor condition.

The defendant denied liability and filed a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s employer, alleging that if the hospital was found liable then the employer must also be found contributorily negligent. Other motions were filed and eventually the employer sought summary judgment against the hospital, arguing that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty to protect it from conditions on the property. The hospital also filed a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff’s claim alleging that it had no notice of the dangerous conditions at the hospital.

The trial court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment against the hospital on its third-party complaint. It also granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff had not filed a response to the motion. Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged defective condition of the hospital’s premises and failed to show that there was a causal connection between the hospital’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injuries.

One of the most tragic types of personal injury cases that we see involves nursing home abuse. Individuals trust these facilities to provide around-the-clock care for elderly individuals during the final years of their lives. Unfortunately, many staff members and facility administrators choose to undermine our state’s clear rules against Illinois nursing home abuse and neglect. If you or a loved one suffered harm in a nursing home, call us today to learn more about your potential rights.

Recently, the Illinois appellate court considered a claim involving a surviving husband who brought several claims against the nursing home where his wife was a resident. The decedent suffered from left-side paralysis following a stroke as well as degenerative joint disease and other conditions. She was marked as a fall risk and suffered two falls during her residency at the facility. One of these falls resulted in a goose-egg sized hematoma on her forehead in addition to other injuries. She was admitted to a hospital for treatment and later discharged. Less than a  month later, she passed away.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the facility was negligent in providing care for his late wife, including preventing her from falling, and that as a result of this negligence the decedent lost her life. The facility moved to dismiss the claim and sought to compel mandatory arbitration in the alternative, pursuant to the resident agreement that the decedent signed as part of her admittance. The plaintiff amended the complaint to include a wrongful death claim following his wife’s passing.

Continue reading

When you are injured due to another driver’s negligence, an important aspect of your recovery is determining which insurance policies provide coverage for your damages. This can become incredibly complicated where multiple policies are involved and where those policies include underinsured motorist provisions. Our dedicated team of Chicago car accident lawyers is ready to help you ensure that you receive the maximum payments possible following a painful and unnecessary accident.

In a recent appellate opinion, the court considered the application of an underinsured motorist policy. The plaintiff filed an underinsured motorist claim against an insurer seeking coverage for injuries that he sustained while driving one of his employer’s 16 vehicles, all of which were covered by policies issued by the insurer. The plaintiff settled with the defendant driver who caused the accident for the defendant’s policy limits of $20,000. The plaintiff then sent notice to the insurer of the underinsured motorist claim and seeking the policy limits. The plaintiff argued that the coverage for all of the 16 policies should be stacked, amounting to $4 million in total available underinsured motorist coverage.

In response, the insurer argued that only $250,000 was available, constituting the policy for one of the vehicles. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that he should be permitted to stack the coverages while the insurer argued that the policy had clear language that prohibited stacking and that because the premiums were listed separately for each vehicle the anti-stacking aspect was clear. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s interpretation that called for stacking all 16 policies was correct. The insurer appealed.

Continue reading

For residents of Illinois, winter weather can bring many serious dangers, including slippery walkways and stairwells. If the owner of a property fails to account for this type of dangerous condition and to make the premises safe, you could find yourself facing a serious and painful injury. As seasoned Chicago premises liability lawyers, we are standing by and ready to help you seek the justice that you deserve for an unnecessary slip and fall accident.

In a recent appellate case, the appellate court considered whether the lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a premises owner in an action involving a slip and fall on an icy stairway. The plaintiff alleged that the owners of the property allowed ice to accumulate on stairs and that the defendants acted negligently in failing to keep the property safe. More specifically, she claimed that the ice accumulation was due to faulty gutters o the roof that caused an unnatural amount of water to pour onto the stairwell and freeze in the cold temperatures.

According to Illinois law, liability for a fall that results from an unnatural accumulation of ice can be based on a defective condition on the property or the owner’s negligent maintenance of the property. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the allegedly faulty gutters caused the unnatural accumulation of ice on the stairs. The only evidence that the plaintiff provided to support this argument was the existence of icicles hanging from the roof. She did not testify to any other evidence indicating that the gutters were installed improperly or that they were not maintained correctly. Nor did she provide evidence of building code violations or the routine existence of icicles stemming from improper construction of the gutters.

Continue reading

Hotels are an incredibly convenient way to handle vacations and work trips, but they also pose countless dangers if the owners do not maintain the premises in good working condition. Under Illinois premises liability law, hotels owe guests the highest level of care when it comes to identifying and repairing dangerous conditions on the property. If you were injured as the result of a dangerous condition at a hotel or resort, the seasoned premises liability lawyers at Therman Law Offices are ready to help you explore your legal rights.

In a recent appellate opinion, the court considered whether the lower court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on his claims alleging that he suffered injuries while working at a trade show at the defendant’s Chicago hotel location. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered injuries because the trade show area was covered with carpet and that there were floor tiles missing underneath the carpeted surface. According to the complaint, placing carpet over the floor without inspecting the floor or addressing the missing tiles or providing a warning about the missing tiles and uneven service constituted negligence.

After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the plaintiff entirely at fault for his injuries. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and he appealed, asserting several assignments of error. First, he alleged that the lower court erred in failing to bar some of the defendants’ expert witnesses for noncompliance with Illinois expert witness disclosure laws. Second, he alleged that it was an error to admit evidence of his prior health issues because they were not at issue in the case. Finally, he alleged that the court improperly allowed evidence to be admitted in violation of the collateral source rule, which bars evidence showing that the plaintiff was compensated through insurance for medical expenses related to his or her injuries.

Continue reading

workers compensation

Photo Credit: zimmytws / Shutterstock.com

Chicago is one of the largest and most diversified cities in the United States. This means that while there are plenty of opportunities for jobs, there are also countless ways that Illinois workers may find themselves injured and in need of workers’ compensation benefits. The seasoned Illinois work injury lawyers at Therman Law Offices have handled a wide variety of claims and understand how to navigate the process smoothly and efficiently while protecting your rights. There are some instances in which Illinois law allows an injured worker to pursue a civil claim against the persons or companies responsible for his or her injuries, but in most situations, the workers’ compensation claim system is considered the injured worker’s exclusive remedy.

Recently, an Illinois appellate court considered an appeal involving an injured worker’s claim for benefits and whether he could file a civil claim against one of the involved parties. The plaintiff was injured in October 2007 while cleaning a machine at a plastics manufacturing company. He filed suit against many different parties and all but one of the defendants was eventually dismissed or removed from the dispute due to a settlement agreement with the plaintiff. The remaining defendant, a tool company, eventually filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s causes of action. In the alternative, it argued that even if the company was involved in a joint venture with the plaintiff’s employer, the workers’ compensation system was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy.

funeral

Photo Credit: Syda Productions / Shutterstock.com

In addition to substantive rules that determine when someone is entitled to compensation, there are countless evidentiary and procedural rules that apply to legal proceedings. If a party fails to abide by these evidentiary and procedural rules, it can serve as the basis for a new trial. If a jury is exposed to evidence that it was not supposed to hear, it can unfairly prejudice the jury and skew its ability to apply the law to the facts of the case. As dedicated Chicago personal injury lawyers, we have substantial knowledge regarding the evidentiary and procedural rules that apply during legal proceedings and we will ensure that they are applied fairly in your case.

A recent Illinois appellate opinion provides an example of how an evidentiary rule can impact the outcome of litigation. The decedent’s wife, who was designated the independent administrator of her husband’s estate, brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the medical persons who cared for her husband up until his death, which resulted from a pulmonary embolism. A jury trial was conducted and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing that the defendant’s lawyer ignored a pretrial motion in limine order that barred any mention of her husband’s refusal to be transferred to another hospital on the day that he died. The court found that the comments made by defense counsel in closing violated the motion in limine and were sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

Continue reading

car insurance

Photo Credit: Africa Studio / Shutterstock.com

One of the most complex parts of a motor vehicle accident is dealing with insurance companies and understanding your rights under a policy. The experienced Chicago car accident lawyers at Therman Law Offices are committed to providing injury victims with the tenacious legal representation they deserve during a stressful and painful injury accident dispute. Insurance companies don’t always have your best interests in mind, but we will fight to make sure that you are treated fairly.

In a recent appellate opinion, the court considered an issue involving an uninsured motorist policy. The plaintiff suffered injuries after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian. The plaintiff demanded arbitration with her mother’s insurance policy because the driver of the vehicle was uninsured. The mother’s policy defined an uninsured motor vehicle as a vehicle for which there is no bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident. It also provides for arbitration of claims involving uninsured motorists. The insurer denied coverage based on a provision in the policy stating that in the event of an accident, written notice – including details about the incident – should be provided to the insurer as soon as possible. It also relied on a Proof of Claim term in the policy requiring that the person making a claim provide information regarding the extent of treatment.

Continue reading