Articles Posted in Auto Accidents

by

In most rear-end accident lawsuits, the jury finds in favor of the driver who rear ends the other car. In most of these car accident cases, there might be some explanation for why the first car stopped and the expectation is that the second driver should be aware and stop in time to avoid an accident. However, in the Kane County lawsuit of Diane Flynn v. Soula Galanis, 10 L 49, the jury found that the first driver was primarily at fault.

The relevant car accident in Flynn occurred near the intersection of Route 47 and Freeman Road in Huntley, Illinois. The defendant in the personal injury lawsuit, Soula Galanis, allegedly cut in front of a line of traffic driving on Route 47 and then stopped suddenly in the left-hand lane. The car behind Galanis was unable to stop in time and ended up rear-ended Galanis’s vehicle. Diane Flynn, the plaintiff in the personal injury claim, then rear-ended the second vehicle.

Flynn filed a personal injury claim against Galanis that alleged that Galanis’s negligence caused the chain reaction car crash. Flynn sought to recover damages for her medical treatment, loss of normal life, and pain and suffering that she endured as a result of the car accident. Following the multi-car accident, Flynn was taken to the emergency room to treat her whiplash injury. In addition, Flynn made several visits to her doctor and underwent physical therapy treatment in an attempt to relieve her muscle pain. And while her medical treatment ended years before the personal injury trial, Flynn’s physician testified that she would continue to have intermittent pain for the rest of her life due to the permanent injuries to her muscle fibers caused by the car accident.

Continue reading

by

Technology has brought many improvements to our day to day lives, whether by allowing us the convenience of looking up directions when we’re lost, or by allowing us to conduct quick research online. However, technology has also created new complications and potentially dangerous situations. For example, before cell phones were invented it was unthinkable that you would write a message while driving, whereas in today’s age, texting while driving has become a widespread problem that can lead to potentially deadly auto accidents.

A new study released by the University of North Texas Health Science Center reported that in between 2001 and 2007 over 16,000 people lost their lives as a result of car accidents caused by drivers who were texting. Despite these numbers, less than 20 states have adopted legislation that places bans on texting while driving. Illinois is among the few states who have laws against texting and driving; however, it will take more than legislation to stop the drivers from texting.

Many of those opposed to texting while driving have advocated to an approach similar to the one used to encourage drivers to observe seat belt laws. Prior to the 1960s, many cars did not come equipped with seat belts and many drivers and passengers did not see the value in using seat belts when they were introduced. It wasn’t until people began to associate seat belts with safety that they began to adopt the buckle up mentality. Today many parents won’t even move their car until their children’s seat belts are in place to prevent car accident fatalities. As a result, most people automatically buckle up when they get into a car. It is this type of strategy that we need to apply to texting while driving.

Continue reading

by

An Indiana jury found entered a $4.25 million verdict against a truck driver and his employer for the wrongful death of 28 year-old Hawa Sissoko in Estate of Hawa Sissoko, deceased v. Roadway Express, Inc., YRC Worldwide, Inc., et al., 09 L 2542.

Sissoko’s vehicle was stopped on an Indiana tollway; Sissoko’s 2007 Dodge Intrepid was not pulled to the side of the road, but was in fact sitting in the right lane of traffic. According to eyewitness reports, Sissoko was standing behind her car when she was struck by a semi truck driven by Alfred Baggiani. Sissoko was pinned between the truck and her car, which then caught on firing; Sissoko died immediately as a result of the highway accident.

Sissoko was survived by her parents and eight siblings, all of whom lived in Mali, West Africa. And while Sissoko’s parents had not seen her since 2000, they maintained regular contact by telephone. A lawsuit was brought by Sissoko’s surviving family members against Baggiani according to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act. Sissoko’s estate also brought a claim against Roadway Express, Inc., the trucking company Baggiani worked for, and its parent company, YRC Worldwide, Inc. The wrongful death claims sought damages for the loss of Sissoko’s society that her family had allegedly suffered as a result of the defendants’ negligence.

Continue reading

by

When you are first learning to ride a bike, you take precautions to ensure your safety – perhaps by wearing a bicycle helmet, or by using training wheels. But as we become more confident bicyclists we tend to abandon those safety measures. However, the decision not to wear a bicycle helmet and to engage in dangerous bike riding behavior can lead to potentially fatal bicycle accidents.

According to a recent report released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in 2009 alone 630 bicyclists were killed in motor vehicle accidents and 51,000 bicyclists were injured. Of those bicyclists who were killed, the study showed that 91 percent of them were not wearing bicycle helmets. And according to the National Highway Safety Administration, only about 35% of bicyclists use bike helmets on a regular basis.

Illinois does not currently have a bicycle helmet law in place that would require bicycle riders to wear an approved helmet while riding their bicycles. In fact, only 37 of the 50 U.S. states actually require bike riders to wear helmets; most of the bike helmet laws in place only apply to riders aged 18 and younger.

Continue reading

by

When it comes to car accident lawsuits, a jury will very rarely reward a driver for engaging in dangerous behavior. This trend held true in the motorcycle accident case of Edward Utterback, Janette Simons v. Dawn Isenhart, 09 L 15849. The jury found in favor of the defendant after determining that the plaintiff motorcycle driver was 100 percent at fault for the accident.

The motorcycle crash occurred near the Chicago intersection of Clark Street and Granville Avenue. The defendant, Dawn Isenhart, was making a right-hand turn into the parking lot of the Raven Theater. As Isenhart turned, she collided with Edward Utterback’s motorcycle, throwing both he and his passenger from the vehicle.

Utterback sustained a rib contusion, or bruise, and suffered from neck pain following the motorcycle accident. Janette Simons, his passenger, fractured her right collar bone, sustained “road rash,” and required stitches. She also reportedly lost consciousness at the scene of the crash.

Both Utterback and Simons filed a personal injury claim against Isenhart in which they contended that Isenhart’s negligent driving caused their injuries. And while both parties initially included lost wage claims for their missed time from work, Utterback withdrew his claim prior to the Cook County trial.

Continue reading

by

In TV courtroom dramas, the story always ends with the jury verdict. However, in real life, sometimes the jury verdict is just the beginning. Lawyers can appeal a jury verdict with the hope of reversing the verdict, or even of obtaining a new trial. And while most appeals only make it to the appellate court level, some are taken all the way to the supreme court.

In the wrongful death lawsuit of Tracey Powell for the Estate of Adam McDonald, deceased v. Dean Foods Company, et al., 2012 IL 111714, the plaintiffs received a $20 million jury verdict. However, the case did not stop there. One of the defendants filed an appeal, which resulted in a reversal of the $20 million verdict and a new trial. The plaintiffs then appealed that decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and were eventually able to get the original $20 million verdict reinstated. So while the plaintiffs were left with the initial outcome, it took a much longer time for them to claim their award.

The case facts in Powell involved a 2002 Indiana truck accident in which three people were killed. Christina Chakonas was attempting to make a left turn after stopping at a stop sign when she was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Jamie L. Reeves. Chakons and her two passengers, Adam McDonald and Diana Kakidas, were killed. A wrongful death lawsuit was filed against Reeves, his employer, and the company that owned the goods he was transporting.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a spoliation claim in a product liability lawsuit arising out of a 2004 car accident. The trial court had ruled that the insurer for the defendant vehicle salvage company did not have to contribute to any settlement that might arise out the salvage company’s inappropriate destruction of the relevant vehicle. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling and found that the salvage company’s insurance policy did in fact cover any claims arising out of spoliation of evidence. As a result of the appellate court’s decision, the defendant’s insurance company will now have to pay any reasonable damages arising out of the spoliation claim. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., et al., No. 1-10-1723 (December 16, 2011).

The product liability lawsuit was based on a 2004 SUV rollover accident. Michael Widawski’s Nissan Pathfinder SUV rolled over, ejecting Monika Gramacki, its only passenger, from the vehicle as it rolled over. Gramacki died and her family brought a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for an alleged defect in the Pathfinder’s rear door.

The main piece of evidence in a product defect claim is the alleged damaged product, which in this case would Widawski’s Nissan Pathfinder. It is not enough for a party to simply allege that a product is defective; it must also be examined by experts to determine the source of the defect and whether that defect caused harm to the party. However, in the present case, no experts were able to examine Widawski’s vehicle because it was destroyed before they could do so.

Following the rollover accident, Widawski’s insurer, Farmers Insurance, handled the preservation of the Pathfinder. Farmers hired LKQ Smart Parts, Inc., a vehicle salvage and storage firm, to store the damaged Nissan and keep it in its current condition. However, LKQ failed to follow these instructions and somehow ended up destroying the Nissan Pathfinder shortly after it arrived. And with its destruction went Gramacki’s family’s hope of a fair and successful product defect claim against Nissan.

In order to rectify this dilemma, Gramacki’s father filed two lawsuits: the first was a product liability lawsuit against Nissan for the allegedly faulty door latch, the second was a spoliation of evidence claim against Farmers for the destroyed Pathfinder. In its claim against Farmers, Gramacki alleged that the “destruction of the subject Nissan Pathfinder deprived Plaintiff of the key piece of evidence necessary to prove an otherwise valid product liability/negligence lawsuit” against Nissan. Farmers then filed a third party lawsuit against LKQ for its role in destroying the Pathfinder.

Continue reading

by

Cell phones have made it easier for people to stay connected and to access data while on the go. However, cell phones can cause car accidents, whether the driver is using them to talk or to text. And while many states, including Illinois, have passed bans on the use of cell phones while driving, doing so has not been able to halt the use of cell phones while driving.

Consequently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is looking for other strategies to halt the use of cell phones while driving. Last week it suggested that insurance companies could help limit this widespread problem if they simply refused to pay out for accident claims caused by drivers texting or talking on their cell phones.

And while the NTSB’s idea makes sense and even seems like it could work, insurance companies are not jumping on board. To explain their reluctance to adopt the NTSB’s suggestions, insurance companies explained that one of the main reasons to have insurance is that insurance companies will cover the cost of injuries even if the auto accident is caused by careless or even reckless behavior. And as an insurance specialist and spokesperson for the Consumer Federation of America said, “An accident is an accident.”

Continue reading

by

It is common knowledge that insurance companies tend to drag their feet when it comes to paying out on insurance policies. Therefore, there are laws in place to prevent insurance companies from acting in bad faith and requiring them to uphold their end of the bargain. However, in the lawsuit of Kevin Pryor v. United Equitable Insurance Company, No. 1-11-0544 (2011), the appellate court found that the insurance company had actually not acted in bad faith. Rather, it was the insured client who had jumped the gun and filed an unnecessary lawsuit.

The case arose out of a claim the plaintiff, Kevin Pryor, filed after being involved in a 2009 car crash. While Pryor had car insurance, the other driver did not. Therefore, Pryor filed an uninsured motorist claim with his own insurance company, United Equitable Insurance Company.

On January 21, 2010, Pryor entered into a binding arbitration agreement with United Equitable for an award of $9,775. On January 27, 2010, Pryor signed a release and trust agreement regarding that award. On February 5, 2010, Pryor signed a release of the physician’s lien, thereby completing his part of the arbitration agreement. United Equitable was to pay out Pryor’s award within 30 days of receiving his release. However, when it had still failed to pay out by March 2, 2010, Pryor brought an insurance malpractice lawsuit against United Equitable.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois jury evaluated a bicycle accident lawsuit to determine not only whether the defendant driver was liable, but also whether her employer was liable in Cedric Bacon v. City of Joliet, Sgt. Cordelia Dunn , 08L-859. The personal injury lawsuit arose out of a bicycle accident in which the defendant, Sgt. Cordelia Dunn, struck the plaintiff’s bicycle while driving 50 mph through an intersection. Sgt. Dunn was responding to a call under her duty as a Joliet Police Officer, thereby making her employer, the Joliet Police Department, liable as well.

Cedric Bacon, the injured bicyclist who brought the personal injury claim against Sgt. Dunn for the injuries he sustained from the Joliet bicycle accident. Bacon required an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) surgery to repair the broken bones in his right leg; the breaks were so severe that the surgeons needed to place screws and plates to try to stabilize the bones. Despite the surgery, injuries to the surrounding artery and nerves caused Bacon to develop a severe foot drop. In addition, Bacon suffered a severe brain injury and developed subsequent anxiety.

At the personal injury trial, the bulk of the testimony centered on what happened at the intersection accident and whether Sgt. Dunn was acting within the scope of her employment. In an unusual turn of events, Sgt. Dunn refused to testify for her discovery deposition. As a result, the judge barred her from testifying at trial, forcing the defense to find an alternative way to represent Dunn’s versions of the events. To do so, the City of Joliet hired two accident reconstruction experts to reconstruct the intersection accident and testify before the jury at trial.

Continue reading