Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

We often tell new teenage drivers that “driving is not a right, it’s a privilege,” in an effort to impress on them the many responsibilities that come with driving. When we get behind the wheel we need to be conscious of driving in a way that ensures our safety as well as that of other drivers and pedestrians. It is for this reason that we commit to memory many rules, e.g., the pedestrian always has the right of way, or reduce speed in a school zone. The failure to follow these rules increases the possibility of a car accident occurring.

A recent Cook County jury was asked to analyze a personal injury lawsuit involving a pedestrian and a car. The plaintiff was a student at Proviso East High School in Maywood, Illinois, and was leaving his school when the car accident occurred. The case was filed by a teenage boy who was hit by a driver while walking across the street to get a ride. As a result of the pedestrian car accident, the teenager sustained a severe leg fracture, requiring surgery and the placement of four screws. And while the boy eventually made a full recovery, it was not until his family had amassed over $35,000 in medical bills.

The defendant car driver was issued a ticket for traveling over the 20 mph posted speed limit and for failing to yield to a pedestrian. The driver freely admitted that he was going 5 to 10 mph over the posted school zone speed limit. However, despite this admission of guilt, the Cook County jury found in favor of the defendant driver.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois District judge denied the U.S. government’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the government had failed to establish that the plaintiff’s claim was not valid in James D. Fowler v. The United States of America, 08-CV-2785. The U.S. government had attempted to prove that the plaintiff was barred from receiving compensation from the post office because he had already received workers’ compensation directly from his employer. However, the district court disagreed with the U.S.’s classification of the plaintiff as a “borrowed employee,” thereby denying its motion for summary judgment.

The claims in Fowler arose out of an injury that James Fowler sustained at a while delivering mail to a Libertyville Post Office. Fowler was an employee of Eagle Express, a company which regularly contracted with the U.S. Postal Service to move mail between its various facilities. Under these “highway contract routes” (HCR) agreements, Eagle Express was responsible for covering all of the costs and duties associated with delivering mail on its required routes, including the payment and insuring of Eagle Express employees.

So even though Fowler was injured at the Libertyville Post Office while engaged in work for the U.S. Postal Service, his workers’ compensation claim was covered by Eagle Express. However, he sought to recovery additional damages from the U.S. Post Office based on the negligence of its employees in causing his injury based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. The FTCA allows parties to sue the U.S. for personal injury “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission” of any federal government employee “while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

However, the U.S. argued that it was not liable for Fowler’s injuries because he was a borrowed employee. Because the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act is an exclusive remedy, an employee’s employer and any borrowing employer are immune from tort liability arising from an injury. Jorden v. U.S., Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2011. U.S. argued that just as Fowler was barred from pursuing a lawsuit against Eagle Express because he had already recovered workers’ compensation, so was Fowler barred from suing the U.S. Post Services based on his status as a borrowed employee.

Continue reading

by

It is commonly acknowledged that employers have a duty to provide a safe, healthy environment to their employees. If an employer fails to provide a safe environment, perhaps resulting in a work injury, then that employer may be held liable for the employee’s injuries. However, a new Illinois Supreme Court decision extends an employer’s duty beyond just to its employee, but to the employee’s family as well.

The Illinois case of Cynthia Simpkins v. CSX Transportation,110662 (March 22, 2012), was filed after the wife of a CSX Transportation employee developed mesothelioma; the wife alleged that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos on her husband’s work clothes. The trial court dismissed the case on the basis that CSX owed no responsibility to its employee’s wife because there was no direct relationship between her and CSX. However, both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed that ruling, although for different reasons.

The Illinois Appellate Court decision held that not only does an employer have a responsibility to its employee’s family members, but that the plaintiff had shown sufficient evidence to support its claims against CSX. Specifically, the court found that “it takes little imagination to presume that when an employee who is exposed to asbestos brings home his work clothes, members of his family are likely to be exposed as well.” Therefore, the appellate court found that Simpkins had provided evidence to suggest that CSX was negligent and did not fulfill its duty to her. And while the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that in theory an employer does have a duty to its employees’ family members, it did not agree that Simpkins had provided enough evidence to prove that CSX did in fact have a duty towards her.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois employee who was involved in a car accident during the course of his employment sought to recoup payments from both his employer’s workers’ compensation policy and its car insurance policy. When the insurance company denied his claims, the employee filed a lawsuit in order to recoup those costs. And while the Illinois Appellate Court allowed some of the plaintiff’s claims, it denied others in Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035.

In 2007, the plaintiff, Curtis Burcham, was driving a truck for his employer, P&M Mercury Mechanical Corporation (P&M), when he was struck by an uninsured motorist. Burcham sustained multiple injuries from the truck accident and had to undergo several surgeries. Because the accident occurred while Burcham was working, his employer, P&M, paid for his medical expenses and lost wages out of its workers’ compensation policy. To date, P&M has paid $490,000 for medical expenses, more than $100,000 for temporary-total incapacity, and continues to pay $925 per week based on Burcham’s 2/3 weekly wage.

P&M also had an uninsured and underinsured motorist policy through West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. Since the other driver involved in Burcham’s truck accident was not insured, he sought to receive additional payments from West Bend under P&M’s truck insurance policy. However, West Bend denied the claim, citing a provision in its policy that it “will not pay for any element of loss if a person is entitled to receive payment for the same element of loss under any worker’s compensation, disability benefits or similar law.” West Bend’s position was that since Burcham was already receiving workers’ compensation payments for the truck accident that he was not entitled to any money from West Bend’s uninsured motorist policy.

Continue reading

by

In business, it is important to trust your partners and that the information that they provide is truthful. However, to ensure that trusted business associates do not withhold information and knowingly deceive people, the law imposes a fiduciary duty. This duty requires a party to act in the best interest of another party and forbids the party from putting his/her own interests first.

In the Illinois business lawsuit of Bret A. Broaddus v. Kevin Shields, 7th Circuit, No. 11-1117 (December 21, 2011), the plaintiff accuses the defendant of a breach of fiduciary duty. Kevin Shields was the managing partner of Will Partners, LLC, a company in which Bret Broaddus owned a 10 percent membership. Broaddus owned this interest for a little over two years, after which he made the decision to sell his share of Will Partners, a decision which Broaddus alleges was based on false information provided by Shields.

Will Partners was started as a property management company in Monee, Illinois. One of its projects involved the construction of a warehouse for World Kitchen, Inc., who in turn paid Will Partners rent every month. When Broaddus invested in Will Partners, it was agreed that the bulk of his interest would be coming from World Kitchen’s rent. It is this agreement that serves as the basis for the relevant business lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

As a general rule, pedestrians have the right of way; however, this does not mean that the driver is always at fault. While car drivers have a duty to look out for pedestrians in a designated crosswalk, they do not have the same duty to watch for pedestrians on a designated roadway. In the Cook County personal injury lawsuit of Hashi Said v. Mamoudou Barry, 09 L 5973, the jury found in favor of the car driver, not the pedestrian.

Hashi Said was the pedestrian in this scenario. Said, a taxi cab driver, had parked his cab at a taxi holding area located at O’Hare airport. The taxi holding area is a designated area where cabs line up; it includes an area at the roadside where the cab drivers can socialize and take breaks. At the time of the pedestrian-car accident, Said was walking in the parking lot area when he was hit by a cab being driven by Mamoudou Barry.

The force of the collision caused the 33 year-old Said to sustain a left knee fracture and a tear to his left lateral meniscus. Said was out of work for ten months while he underwent three separate surgeries and physical therapy. And despite all his medical treatment, Said will likely need a knee replacement in the future.

Said filed a personal injury lawsuit against Barry, in which he alleged that Barry had caused the pedestrian accident by driving at an unnecessarily high speeds. According to Said’s theory of liability, if Barry had not been driving at those high speeds, then the auto accident would not have occurred. Said was seeking reimbursement for his medical expenses, pain and suffering, and payment of his $72,793 workers’ compensation lien.

Continue reading

by

Personal injury lawsuits like Heather Pflanz v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al. 08 L 4878, remind us that injuries can result from the activities we engage in on a daily basis. The plaintiff in the Chicago lawsuit fell after boarding a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus, injuring her leg so badly that she need surgery. And while the Chicago jury found the plaintiff to be partially responsible for her own injuries, it found that the bulk of the blame lay with the bus driver.

The incident occurred after 37 year-old Heather Pflanz boarded a northbound CTA bus near State Street and Maple Street. Pflanz boarded the bus and was looking through her purse to find her Chicago Card to pay the bus fare. However, the bus reportedly pulled away from the curb suddenly, causing Pflanz to lose her balance and fall forward.

As a result of her slip and fall injury, Pflanz fractured her right tibia/fibula in her lower leg. The severity of the break meant that Pflanz needed to undergo surgery and have nails and screws installed in her leg for additional support. Although Pflanz has recovered, she continues to have ongoing swelling, pain, and stiffness in her right ankle. In addition, Pflanz has since been diagnosed with patellar tendinosis in her right knee and may require additional surgery to fix her kneecap’s tendon.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court’s ruling regarding the venue in a railroad employee’s personal injury lawsuit. While the railroad company had wanted to transfer the case to Mississippi, the Illinois courts supported the plaintiff’s choice of Illinois as the case’s venue. Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 2012 WL 19455 (Ill.App.2012).

The plaintiff, Walter Fennell, had been working for Illinois Central Railroad Company for over 35 years. In 2009, Fennell filed a Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad. The FELA lawsuit alleged that Fennell was exposed to asbestos, diesel exhaust, environmental tobacco smoke, sand, and toxic fumes, dust, and gases during the tenure of his employment, which in turn resulted in Fennell’s current respiratory problems. Fennell was seeking compensation for the health problems he allegedly developed during the course of his employment with Illinois Central.

Shortly after Fennell was filed, Illinois Central sought to have the case dismissed under the doctrine of interstate forum non conveniens, which is a legal doctrine that allows a court to deny its jurisdiction if it finds that a different forum would be more convenient and more equitable. The defendant railroad argued that Mississippi would be a more convenient and fair location on the grounds that Fennell himself lived in Mississippi, that Fennell had worked in Mississippi for the majority of his career, and because the alleged injury likely occurred in Mississippi. However, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion and affirmed Illinois’s jurisdiction in the case; the defendants appealed this decision.

Continue reading

by

Compared to many jobs, construction work is a dangerous field. For most office workers, their job’s safety policies involve emergency situations, like a fire. However, for construction workers, safety policies and procedures are a part of their every day tasks. These safety policies and procedures are helps many construction site injuries and are essential to decreasing the number of injured construction workers.

Therefore, when these policies and procedures are not in place, the likelihood of a construction site injury increases. In the New York case of Carmona v. Dormitory Authority of New York, No. 303798/08 (N.Y., Bronx Co. June 10, 2011), a construction worker filed a personal injury lawsuit alleging that his work injury was caused by a lack of safety procedures.

Forty-one year-old Raymond Carmona was working as an ironworker at the time of his injury. Carmona was in the process of removing an old steel awning from a New York building owned by the Dormitory Authority of New York when he struck his head on a duct. Carmona lost his balance and fell 25 feet to the ground below. As a result of the fall, Carmona fractured his coccyx and sacrum and severely injured his lower back. His injuries eventually required a fusion surgery to his lower back, severely limiting his future mobility.

Continue reading

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