Analyzes Illinois appellate court decision on law distinguishing between roadway’s intended versus permitted user and effects on municipalities and bicyclists
Discusses an Illinois appellate case where plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to circumvent sovereign immunity by filing in a circuit court instead of court of claims
Reviews Illinois Supreme Court decision addressing whether exception in Section 337 requires possessor of land to warn trespasser of open and obvious danger
Analyzes an appellate court decision where the distinction between “treatment” and “diagnosis” determined application of Illinois Tort Immunity Act
Examines: appellate ruling on trial court’s right to decide order of presenting evidence in consolidated proceedings; key issues determining residency for insurance coverage
Analysis of recent Illinois Appellate Court ruling that exclusion clause did not apply and the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify its insured driver
Examines an Illinois appellate court ruling that narrows any exception for a bicyclist to be considered an intended and permitted user of a roadway
Examines why snow/ice removal contractors need to re-evaluate contracts with property owners based on appellate court ruling on liability to third parties
Examines an Illinois appellate court ruling that in narrow circumstances, a bicyclist can be considered an intended and permitted user of a roadway
Examines Illinois Appellate Court ruling that lack of jury trial didn’t outweigh untimely motion nor void judgment made when court had proper jurisdiction
Analyzes Illinois Appellate ruling denying improper venue and forum non conveniens in case where co-defendant was dismissed after time required to appear
Analyzes the importance of an attorney’s client being legally defined as an insurance producer versus an insurance agent or insurance broker
In Illinois, statutes provide protection to a disabled person with respect to the time within which a cause of action for personal injury will accrue. Under traditional legal thought, the cause of action begins to accrue and the statute of limitations begins to run immediately on the date of injury. In cases where the injury is not obvious enough to be discovered the moment it occurs, the date of accrual begins on the date the injured person “knows or should have known” a cause of action exists. Under the discovery rule, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing facts to support the ...
The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) establishes safeguards and procedures relating to the retention, collection, disclosure, and destruction of biometric data. Passed in October 2008, BIPA is intended to protect a person’s unique biological traits – the data encompassed in a person’s fingerprint, voice print, retinal scan, or facial geometry. This information is the most sensitive data belonging to an individual. Unlike a PIN code or a social security number, once biometric data is compromised, “the individual has no recourse, is at [a] heightened risk for ...
In Campbell v. General Electric, 2018 IL App (1st) 173051, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently reversed the Cook County Circuit Court’s finding of personal jurisdiction over General Electric (“GE”) in an asbestos case. In directing that GE be dismissed from the case due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, the court struck down the plaintiff’s claims of general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, consent jurisdiction and jurisdiction by necessity. And in so doing, the Court followed the principles set forth by the United States Supreme Court ...
Are you considering retaining an expert, in a medical malpractice case, who has a history of medical malpractice suits being filed against him or her? Have you just deposed an expert in a medical malpractice case and learned that they have been previously sued for medical malpractice? In either situation, you will likely have to determine whether the expert’s prior lawsuits will be admissible at trial. A recent Illinois appellate court ruling, Swift v. Schleicher, suggests that circuit courts should bar any evidence of medical malpractice lawsuits filed against the expert.
The ...
In a recent decision, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, considered what should and should not be considered by a trial court when making a determination on a motion to stay a declaratory judgment action on insurance coverage pending resolution of the underlying litigation. Pekin Insurance Company v. Johnson-Downs Construction, Inc., 2017 IL App (3d) 160601. The underlying suit in Johnson-Downs concerned an injured employee of a subcontractor who sued the general contractor. Originally, the plaintiff employee alleged negligence and premises liability theories ...
Judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions of law, precludes a party from taking a position in a case that is contrary to a position it has taken in earlier legal proceedings. Often, it is asserted as an affirmative defense in a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff failed to disclose the existence of the personal injury lawsuit as an asset in a prior bankruptcy. A plaintiff’s failure to disclose a personal injury cause of action in the bankruptcy proceeding deprives the trustee, and by proxy, the plaintiff’s creditors, of an asset that the creditors ...
On June 27, 2014, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, held that a plaintiff’s common-law negligence action against her decedent’s employer was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of Illinois’ workers’ compensation statutes[1] because her work comp claim would have been non-compensable as untimely under the law’s repose provisions.
The Decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos at a plant owned by defendant Ferro Engineering (“Ferro”) from 1966 to 1970. Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2014 IL App (1st) 123219, ¶ 1, (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. June ...
On October 11, 2013, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District, which includes 30 counties in central Illinois, affirmed summary judgment orders for two defendants. In Bowles v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., the Plaintiff, Decedent’s surviving spouse, brought lung cancer claims against Owens-Illinois and John Crane.
The cancer was allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos while aboard the USS Floyd B. Parks. The Decedent was on board the Parks for less than two years. Additionally, the Decedent only worked in the ship’s radio room. The Plaintiff introduced deposition ...