Articles Posted in Illinois Civil Procedure

by

Defendant Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth dealership in Cook County lucked out with an ideological “get out of trial free” card in a product liability case involving a car sold at his dealership. Murphy v. Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. 2008 WL 927727.

The Illinois Appellate Court’s clarification of section 2-261 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure makes it easier for non-manufacturers to be dismissed from strict product liability cases in Illinois. The relevant section states that

“A court shall not enter a dismissal order relative to any certifying defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer . . . where the plaintiff can show . . . That the defendant had actual knowledge of the defect in the product which caused the injury, death or damage”. 735 ILCS 5/2-621(c)(2).

So if plaintiff could prove that the defendant knew about the product defect then the defendant could not be dismissed from case. However, Murphy takes this interpretation a step further to determine whether it is enough that defendant just knows about the alleged defect or whether they need to know that the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous, too?
In Murphy, Plaintiff Joseph Murphy claimed that he was paralyzed in a rollover accident because his Sebring lacked a roll bar safety device. He alleged that Mancari’s Chrysler Plymouth sold him a Sebring that was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a roll bar. Mancari confirmed that they knew that the vehicle did not have a roll bar, but still claimed that this did not make them directly responsible.

Continue reading

by

In a sharply divided decision, 4-3, the Illinois Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who are allowed to refile a case after a voluntary nonsuit, would still be allowed 90 days after the refiling to present the required Section 2-622 affidavit of a physician or other medical provider to certify that an Illinois medical negligence complaint has merit.

In Illinois it has been the law that as a prerequisite to filing any Illinois medical malpractice case, the plaintiff’s attorney must include with the complaint a certificate of merit asserting that the case has merit from a physician or medical provider expert in the area of medicine being complained about. Sometimes lawyers find that although they believe the facts support a case for medical malpractice, no medical certificate was available in advance of the running of the statute of limitations.

In Illinois the statute of limitations is two years for most tort/negligence cases with some exceptions. What the statute of limitations does is act as a complete bar from bringing the action at all, i.e. the court would dismiss the case unless it is filed within the time limit.

Continue reading

by

On January 25, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Hudson v. City of Chicago that the re-filing of a voluntarily dismissed claim may be barred under res judicata when there is a previous involuntary dismissal of a different claim in the case.

Res judicata refers to an issue before the court that has already been decided on by another court for the same parties. In Hudson, res judicata applied because at least one claim had been involuntary dismissed in the prior case. The Court held that res judicata bars

not only every matter that was actually determined in the first suit, but also every matter that might have been raised and determined in that suit.

Oftentimes an attorney voluntary dismisses a claim when one of its other claims were dismissed in order to re-work the remaining claims and then re-file. However, attorneys now have to be careful not to fall under the banner of res judicata and thereby miss out on refiling their claims. And res judicata can even bar refiling when cases are dismissed “without prejudice”, i.e. allowing for the refiling of suit against the defendant if the defendant doesn’t follow through with the terms of settlement.

Continue reading