Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

While the widespread use of the internet has provided many benefits to the legal community, e.g. online case law, electronic court dockets, etc., it has also brought some challenges. Take for instance the case of Eskew v. Burlington Northern.pdf. In Eskew, the defendants requested a retrial after discovering that one of the jurors had blogged about the trial.

At the Illinois wrongful death trial of Eskew, the jury awarded $4.75 million to the widow of Scott Eskew, a legally blind man who was killed by a train at a Berwyn Metra stop. The estate and family were represented by attorneys Michael Rathsack and Jay Paul Deratney. However, following the wrongful death trial, it was discovered that one of the female jurors had been posting blogs regarding the trial and jury deliberations while the trial was still going on.

Not only did the defendants argue that the blog posts violated the general jury instruction of not talking about the trial while it is going on, but also showed other discrepancies in the jury’s behavior. The defendants requested that the trial judge launch an evidentiary investigation into the juror’s blog and the alleged juror misconduct. However, the trial court denied this request; it is this denial that is at the issue of the defendants’ appeal.

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

Driver fatigue is a leading cause of roadway accidents which could have been easily avoided if the driver had only gotten enough sleep. For this reason, all commercially licensed truck and bus drivers are required to log both their driving hours and their breaks. If a driver adheres to these logbook requirements they should be able to avoid driver fatigue. However, if a truck or bus driver fails to follow these requirements it could lead to potentially fatal accidents.

Take for instance a 2005 highway crash that occurred in New York. A young bus driver had falsified his log book and was reportedly driving erratically. The bus driver ended up slamming into a truck that was parked on the side of the highway. Nineteen passengers were injured in the bus crash; three passengers and the truck driver were killed.

The Canadian bus had been chartered by a women’s youth hockey team, the Windsor Wildcats, and was on its way to a ski resort at the time of the highway accident. The bus was driven by a 24 year-old bus driver who had only been working for Coach Canada for two months. According to eyewitness reports, he was driving erratically before the accident occurred and swerved directly into the parked tracker-trailer to cause the highway crash.

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

In a case of police brutality, the City Council of Chicago will pay a $525,000 settlement to the family of an autistic boy. Oscar Guzman, a minor, was chased and clubbed by police in a case of mistaken identity. The family sued the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police officers for the physical and mental anguish Oscar sustained.

In 2009, Oscar was watching pigeons in front of his family’s Little Village restaurant when two police officers approached him. According to the police, Oscar matched the description of a suspect they were looking for. When he was unable to answer questions and retreated into the family’s restaurant, the police officers chased him. According to one of the officers, Oscar reached towards his wristband and he walked away, which led them to suspect that he had a gun.

Inside the restaurant, Oscar’s parents tried to explain that Oscar had special needs, that he was autistic, and pleaded with the officers to leave him alone. The officers pushed Oscar’s father out of the way and ignored Oscar’s cries that he was “a special boy.” Oscar was hit on the head with a retractable club and sustained a four-centimeter laceration to his head. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance and received stitches.

Continue reading

by

When completing a business contract, it is important to make sure that you satisfy all the requirements as stated. Even if someone verbally tells you to waive one of the requirements, in the end you might be the one who loses out. Take for example the case of Michael Downs, et al. v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, et al., No. 1-09-0970 and 1-09-2091 (Consolidated) (December 16, 2011). The plaintiff, Michael Downs, lost out on an interest at his former company because he failed to comply with the contract’s requirements.

Downs was hired by Rosenthal Collins Group (RCG) in 1997 as its CEO. His starting annual salary was $350,000. In addition, Downs’s employment contract offered the option to purchase a 2.5% limited partnership interest at “book value.” In order to exercise his purchasing right, Downs needed to sign a promissory note. However, for one reason or another, Downs failed to do so.

A year after Downs was hired, RCG reorganized as an LLC, at which point a distinction was made according to the different classifications of owners. Under this new classification, Class A owners were majority owners and managing members, while Class C owners were those owning less than 1/10 of 1% of the company. From 1999 to 2002, Downs began receiving compensation above and over his annual salary based on his additional responsibilities. This additional compensation amounted to 2.5% of the company’s net profits, or a 6.5% distribution.

In 2004, Downs was fired from RCG. Downs then sued the company for breach of contract in which he alleged that he owned a 6.5% share of RCG. However, the trial court found that Downs only owned a 2.5% of the corporation, a finding that RCG contested. Both parties appealed the court’s decision in the commercial litigation lawsuit; Downs on the basis that he owned more and RCG on the basis that he owned nothing.

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

In law, jurisdiction refers to the right of a court to enter judgment on a particular case. Because different courts must follow different laws, decisions of jurisdiction are extremely important in a case’s potential outcome. Take for instance the product liability lawsuit of John Russell v. SNFA, No. 1-09-3012 (2011), in which the trial court dismissed the lawsuit because it felt the court did not have proper jurisdiction over the defendant. Fortunately for the plaintiff, the Illinois Appellate Court felt differently and reversed the lower court’s decision, thereby allowing the case to proceed.

The issue in Russell arose out of a 2003 helicopter crash in Illinois. At the time of the crash, the decedent, Michael Russell, was working as a helicopter pilot for Air Angels, a medical airlift service. Russell was the only person in the helicopter at the time and consequently the only victim of the helicopter crash.

Russell’s surviving family members filed an Illinois product defect lawsuit against SNFA Group, which manufactured a custom ball bearing that was installed in the helicopter at the time of the crash. The lawsuit alleged that the helicopter crash was caused when one of its tail-rotor drive shaft bearings failed, which in turn caused the drive shaft to fracture, causing the tail rotor to be inoperable. Since SNFA manufactured the drive shaft bearing whose failure allegedly caused the helicopter to spin out of control, the family contended that its negligence was responsible for Russell’s death.

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