Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

An Illinois court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Brandon Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, 2011 WL 211008 (N.D. Ill.). The court disagreed with the defendant manufacturer that the Illinois product defect claim did not satisfy the requirements for strict liability or negligence claims and allowed the product defect case to continue.

Stollings involved claims that the Ryobi Technologies manufactured a table saw that was unreasonably dangerous due to several design defects. The Illinois product liability lawsuit was filed after the plaintiff, Brandon Stollings, lost two fingers while he was maneuvering the table saw. Stollings was cutting a piece of wood when it was kicked back at him by the blade, causing his fingers to push forward into the rotating blade. Stollings’s product liability lawsuit claimed that Ryobi Technologies’s table saw was unreasonable dangerous because its anti-kickback device was attached to the saw’s blade guard instead of being an independent system, it lacked flesh-detection technology, and sawdust tended to accumulate in the blade guards and obstruct the view of the operators.

However, the defense filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss both Stollings’s strict product liability counts and his negligence counts, citing evidence that Stollings had removed the blade guard prior to operating the table saw and that the plaintiff admitted to never reading the safety manual. The defense argued that if the plaintiff failed to utilize the safety features it had included then he was over 50% liable for his own injuries.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois personal injury lawsuit involving the injury of a seven year-old girl at a local playground brought up issues of tort immunity in Illinois. Tort immunity laws are meant to determine to what degree a municipality, in this case the park district responsible for maintaining the playground, is immune from its actions. In Steven Tagliere, etc. v. Western Springs Park District, No. 1-09-2633, the plaintiff alleged that the Western Springs Park District was negligent in its maintenance of a seesaw at its park.

Seven year-old Taiylor Tagliere was playing on a seesaw at a park owned by the Western Springs Park District with five other girls when her ankle became lodged in the middle section of the seesaw, resulting in a broken ankle. Steven Tagliere, Taiylo’rs father, testified that when he later went to inspect the seesaw it was missing several bolts, which was evidence that the seesaw contained an “obvious defect.” Under Illinois tort immunity laws, the alleged defect needs to be obvious in order to satisfy one of the requirements for the municipality’s liability.

However, the other factor that the plaintiff must prove is that the failure to maintain the seesaw constituted “willful and wanton misconduct” on behalf of the park district. It was the plaintiff’s failure to prove this that led to the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, despite the presence of an obvious defect. The plaintiff appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, stating that the lower court had erred in dismissing the case and asking the court to reconsider the evidence.

Continue reading

by

A federal jury in New York has returned a verdict in favor of Toyota in one of the first lawsuits brought to trial since the 2008 Toyota recalls. The product defect case of Amir Sitafalwalla v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2008 cv 03001 (E.D. N.Y.) was tried in Central Islip, Long Island, New York.

In this product defect lawsuit, the plaintiff, Amir Sitafalwalla, filed his lawsuit after a 2008 car accident involving his 2005 Toyota Scion. Sitafalwalla, a doctor from Long Island, crashed his vehicle into a tree after it experienced a sudden acceleration. Plaintiff’s attorneys maintained that the single vehicle car accident was caused either by product defects in either the vehicle’s electronic throttle system or its floor mats, a claim that was backed up by plaintiff’s engineering experts.

In response, Toyota’s attorneys claimed that the accident was a result of the driver’s negligence, not its floor mats or electronic system. The jury apparently agreed with the defendants, returning a not guilty verdict in its favor after just an hour of deliberation.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision affects the way Illinois personal injury attorneys are compensated by medical lien holders, such as as hospitals, clinics, or doctors. Wendling v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, et al. and Howell v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, Nos. 110199, 110200 Cons reversed an appellate court decision that held that hospitals were responsible for paying plaintiff attorney fees when the plaintiff’s attorney had assisted in securing payment for the hospital’s outstanding medical lien.

The original lawsuit revolved around three different plaintiffs who were injured in three separate car accidents; however, each plaintiff was treated at hospitals owned by Southern Illinois Hospital Services. Each plaintiff failed to pay his or her hospital bills, so Southern Illinois Hospital Services filed medical liens for each plaintiff under the principles of the Healthcare Services Lien Act.

A lien is entered when an entity, in this case Southern Illinois Hospital Services, lays claim to future funds in payment for past services provided. Because the individual plaintiffs failed to pay their medical bills, the hospital was seeking payment from the defendants who caused the injuries that necessitated the hospital treatment. The idea is that had the defendants not caused the auto accidents, the plaintiffs wouldn’t have needed treatment, and the hospital wouldn’t be left with unpaid bills. Therefore, if proven negligent, then the defendants are responsible for paying the outstanding hospital bills.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling regarding the plaintiff’s request to amend its complaint. In Linda Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc., et al., 10-2193, the plaintiff sought to add an additional theory of liability onto her original complaint. While this is not typically against judicial procedures, the plaintiff attempted to amend her complaint at the onset of her product defect trial. The court denied her request because doing so would have changed the plaintiff’s theory of liability, which would have drastically affected the way the product liability case was tried.

The plaintiff’s original product defect claims arose out of an incident with her Forest River recreational vehicle (RV). As the plaintiff, Linda Aldridge, was exiting her RV, the steps unexpectedly retracted back into the vehicle, causing Aldridge to fall and injure her shoulder. In her original complaint, Aldridge alleged that her injury was a result of Forest River’s defective step controller.

The Illinois product liability complaint alleged that the step controller’s unexpected retraction was the cause of Aldridge’s fall. Counts I and III were based on strict liability, stating that the RV step controller was not reasonably safe for its intended use, which was to raise and lower the RV’s steps. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that Forest River had failed to properly wire, install, and test the step controller.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County jury came to a decision in a Chicago trucking accident case involving a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus driver and a semi-trailer. The truck driver admitted to having caused the truck accident; however, her lawyers contested the extent of the CTA bus driver’s injuries. The Illinois jury returned a verdict of $363,853 in favor of the plaintiff bus driver in Earnestine Johnson v. Marian Pociask, Mr. Bult’s, Inc., 09 L 1613.

At the time of the Chicago truck accident, the plaintiff, Earnestine Johnson, and the defendant truck driver, Marian Pociask, were both driving down Chicago’s LaSalle Street and were both making a left-hand turn onto 47th Street. However, Johnson was making the turn from the left-hand lane, while Pociask was making the turn from LaSalle’s center lane. As Pociask was turning, her truck clipped the right front bumper of Johnson’s bus.

Not only did Pociask’s truck drift into Johnson’s lane, causing the accident, but Pociask was making an illegal left-hand turn from the center, straight-only lane. At the time of the bus accident, Pociask was employed by Mr. Bult’s, a waste transportation company. Both Pociask and her employer were named as defendants at the personal injury trial and both admitted liability for the truck accident.

Continue reading

by

When we are young our parents tell us to look both ways before crossing the street, and in driver’s ed we all learn to use caution when approaching intersections and to look both ways. However, as we become more and more used to approaching intersections we forget these simple lessons. The case of Felis Aspera v. Raul Munoz, RSJM Restaurant, Taqueria Atotonilco #1, Ltd., 07 L 9236, serves as a reminder of how dangerous intersections can be.

In 2007, 61 year-old Felis Aspera was crossing the intersection at Kedzie Avenue and 26th Street. Ms. Aspera was already in the crosswalk as Raul Munoz’s truck was approaching the same intersection. However, Munoz failed to see Ms. Aspera as he made a left-hand turn directly into her path, running right into Ms. Aspera. As a result of her pedestrian-car accident, Ms. Aspera suffered multiple fractures to her left arm and leg and sustained a mild brain injury.

Due to the severity of her injuries, Ms. Aspera required open-reduction surgery on her left femur and required hardware inserted into her left radius and ulna. In addition, Ms. Apsera now walks with a noticeable limp despite the assistance of her newly acquired cane and has limited use of her left hand and is unable to grasp objects.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois personal injury lawsuit resulting from a head-on collision resulted in a $483,000 verdict. While there was not any debate regarding who was at fault for the car accident, there was some disagreement as to the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and whether her sustained injuries had impacted her career; Gina Guide v. James Garlanger, 09 L 1867.

The plaintiff, Gina Guide, was a two-time U.S. national weightlifting champion and was training to earn a slot on the 2012 U.S. Olympic weightlifting team. However, on November 21, 2007, James Garlanger was out driving in icy and snowy conditions when he lost control of his car. Garlanger’s car crossed into oncoming traffic and crashed head-on into Guide’s vehicle.

The 22 year-old Gina Guide sustained a compound fracture and dislocation of her right ankle, multiple fractures along her tibia and fibula, and several torn ligaments. Since her 2007 car crash, Guide has required three different surgeries to treat her leg injuries and is likely to need two additional procedures. And despite all these procedures, Guide walks with a permanent limp and cannot flex her right ankle.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a ruling by a Cook County associate judge who denied a forum non conveniens challenge brought by Motorola in Joseph Erwin, Jr., et al. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1-09-2847. The Illinois birth injury lawsuit involved allegations that the plaintiffs’ children suffered birth defects as a result of their parents’ exposure to hazardous chemicals in the course of their employment in Motorola’s semiconductor industry “clean rooms”.

Motorola’s motion involved a request of a change of venue, citing forum non conveniens rules to support its motion in the birth defect lawsuit. Forum non conveniens is Latin for “inconvenient forum” and are applicable when a lawsuit is filed in a location that is inconvenient for parties or witnesses. Under this principle, a judge is allowed to change a case’s venue if a party can make a substantial case for its inconvenience.

Erwin was filed in a Circuit Court of Cook County court on the basis that Motorola’s headquarters are in Schaumburg, Illinois. However, Motorola argued that a more appropriate venue was Travis County, Texas, on the basis that much of the plaintiffs’ exposure to the hazardous chemicals took place in that county. It submitted a motion to dismiss the birth injury lawsuit on the basis of forum non conveniens, which the circuit court judge denied. Motorola then appealed this decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.

Continue reading

by

While Illinois is amending its motor vehicle laws to offer more protection to bicyclists, an advocacy group is petitioning for additional safety measures. The Active Transportation Alliance (ATA), an organization whose mission is to make Chicago streets safer for bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians, is campaigning to increase the public’s awareness regarding the dangers of bicyclist and car door collisions.

A bicycle-car door collision occurs when a driver opens his or her car door without first checking whether any bicyclists are coming; the bicyclist typically does not have enough warning to avoid the car door and ends up crashing into it. According to the ATA, car door accidents are the most common manner in which Chicago cyclists are injured; however, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) does not maintain records on the number of bicycle-car door accidents in Illinois.

Illinois averaged over 3,500 crashes between bicyclists and motor vehicles each year from 2005 to 2009. According to IDOT, 18 to 27 of those crashes result in cyclist’s deaths and over 3,300 injuries every year. However, IDOT does not currently track the number of bicycle accidents in which a motor vehicle’s door is thrown open in the path of a moving bicycle. Without official records documenting the degree of the problem it is difficult for advocacy groups like ATA to raise motorist awareness and effect change in driver habits. In addition, a spokesperson for ATA stated that excluding dooring accidents from Illinois crash reports could decrease Illinois’s vehicle-bike accident report statistics by 15 percent.

Continue reading