Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

In the Illinois personal injury case of Anderson v. Zamir, No. 5-08-0542, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial after the jury returned a verdict awarding only part of her medical bills. The plaintiff’s medical bills as a result of the rear-end car crash totaled $28,804. However, the jury returned a verdict of only $12,500; only $5,000 of which was for her medical bills with the remaining $7,500 for pain and suffering.

While typically an Appellate Court will not overturn a jury’s monetary awards since this is “an issue of fact for the jury to determine”. Typically a jury’s verdict awards will only be overturned if a party shows that the jury obviously ignored an established element of damages, that the award does not relate to the loss suffered, or if the verdict was the result of prejudice.

The facts of the case were that the plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant. She did not seek treatment for the car crash until the day after the accident, at which time she was complaining of headaches and neck pain. The plaintiff went on to receive several rounds of physical therapy, but with little relief. She eventually underwent surgery to repair a tear in her shoulder.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois worker sued his employer for negligent spoliation of evidence, claiming that it had breached its duty to preserve evidence from a work site forklift accident in Gerard v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 06 C 6163 (April 28, 2010). The plaintiff’s lawsuit was based on his claim that his employer’s negligence in preserving evidence from the accident prevented him from winning an Illinois product defect lawsuit against the forklift manufacturer. Based on its review of the case facts and relevant case law, the court held that plaintiff did not demonstrate that ConAgra Foods had breached its supposed duty to preserve evidence.

While working at one of ConAgra’s warehouses a forklift hit the plaintiff from behind. The force of the impact knocked the plaintiff to the ground, where the forklift ran over his right leg. The forklift in question was one of four machines that ConAgra had rented for use at its St. Charles, Illinois warehouse.

In order to make a viable Illinois product defect case against the forklift manufacturer the plaintiff needed to know which of the four forklifts had hit him. Without being sure which forklift was involved in the accident it would be difficult for the plaintiff to claim that the accident was caused by the forklift’s malfunction as a result of a product defect.

However, while ConAgra did make an investigation into the accident it never document which forklift was responsible. Furthermore, ConAgra had already returned at least on of the forklifts to the leasing company by the time the plaintiff began to investigate the workplace accident on his own. Therefore, the plaintiff was never able to discover which forklift ran him over and consequently was unable to prove his product defect case against the forklift manufacturer.

The plaintiff sought restitution from his employer on spoliation of evidence claims. In response, the defendant ConAgra filed a motion for summary judgment stating that given the relevant facts that it owed no duty the plaintiff on the spoliation issue.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a recall on over 2 million drop-side cribs. Drop-side cribs are baby cribs whose sides raise and lower in order to make it easier for parents to lift their baby out of the crib. However, numerous reports injury or deaths resulting from repeated malfunctions of these movable sides has led to the widespread recall of drop-side cribs.

According to reports, these cribs’ product defect seems to result from a product design defect that allows the baby to slip into the gap that opens up when the movable sides separate from the crib. There have been reports of over 30 babies in the U.S. alone who have died as a result of the malfunctioning cribs and over 250 consumer reports of defective sides during the span of 2000 to 2009. The inherent dangers in these types of cribs has prompted a spokesperson from Kids in Danger, a Chicago-based advocacy group, to warn parents not to use a drop-sided crib.

A 2007 expose by the Chicago Tribune can be credited with first exposing the dangers that can result from the crib’s product defect. To date there have been approximately 9 million cribs recalled. For more information on the specific cribs included in the recall, visit the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County auto accident case will be retried on damages after an Illinois Appellate Court decision to grant plaintiff’s motion in Kiggins v. Mather, No. 1-08-1753. At the original personal injury trial the plaintiff had received a verdict of $49,711 for medical expenses and lost earnings. However, the original verdict did not return any damages for disfigurement, loss of normal life, or pain and suffering.

In Illinois, the amount of damages awarded is typically left up to the jury’s discretion. The jury is given judge-approved jury instructions so that the jury can make an informed decision regarding its verdict. Oftentimes if a party disagrees with the verdict their appeal focuses on the content of these jury instructions. For example, in Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., No. 108910, the Appellate Court considered issues regarding the sole proximate cause jury instruction.

However, in Kiggins, the issue was not the jury instructions, but the jury’s decision itself. Kiggins argued that he should have been awarded damages for pain and suffering and disfigurement. The basis for this argument was that he had suffered more than a minor injury as a result of the auto accident and as such was entitled to additional non-economic damages.

Continue reading

by

A recent Illinois Appellate Court case has clarified the duty an employer owes to not only its employees, but also to the employee’s family. Simpkins v. CSX Corp, et al., No. 5-07-0346, involves a claim brought by the ex-wife of a former railroad worker regarding asbestos exposure she experienced as a result of her ex-husband’s employment.

The plaintiff’s ex-husband had worked at B&O Railroad as a steelworker, welder, railroad firefighter and laborer from 1951 to 1965. During the majority of his employment he was exposed to asbestos in his work environment. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that she had contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos on her husband’s work clothes and asserted that the railroad had negligently failed to take proper precautions to protect its employees’ families from “take-home” asbestos.

The railroad filed a motion to dismiss that stated that there no Illinois case set out that an employer owed a duty to its employee’s family members who had been exposed to asbestos. Therefore, any ruling on the employer’s duty would create a new cause of action. The railroad then went on to state that this was not an issue for the trial court, but should be decided by either the legislature or an appellate court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case, leaving the burden on the plaintiff to appeal if she felt there was reason to create a new cause of action.

Continue reading

by

Late yesterday afternoon a fire developed on Chicago’s Red Line train, halting traffic and forcing 19 passengers to the hospital. Five people were reported to have suffered serious injuries, including a 10 year-old boy who was observed overnight at Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital.

Firefighters were investigating the cause of the railroad fire and have identified the source as railroad ties catching fire on the train track between the Red Line’s Chicago Avenue and Clark/Division stops. While it is currently unclear what caused the fire, Chicago Fire Department representatives have indicated that Chicago’s summer heat occasionally causes the railroad ties to catch fire, but is more common on elevated trains than subway trains. Yesterday the high in Chicago was 78 degrees Fahrenheit.

Passengers aboard the Red Line subway train when the fire broke out reported black, billowing smoke that became so thick they could not see across the aisle. According to a Chicago Tribune article, by the time the train arrived at its next stop and passengers were finally able to exit, they did so in a huge rush, literally “fleeing for the exits”.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed in part and reversed in part a ruling by a Lake County, Illinois circuit court judge regarding parents’ liability when minors consume alcohol at their home. The decision in Bell v. Hutsell, No. 2-09-0577, involves a case where two 18 year-old males who had been drinking at the defendants’ home were killed after their car crashed into a tree.

The Illinois wrongful death lawsuit was filed by the mother of the driver of the vehicle and alleged that the defendants were negligent when they failed to prevent their underage guests from consuming alcohol on their property and that the defendants were in violation of the Illinois Liquor Control Act because they failed to control access to alcohol on their premises. Both decedents had attended a party at the defendants’ residence hosted by their son where alcohol was being consumed.

According to the case facts, the defendants had informed their son that they would not allow any alcoholic beverages at his party and that they would be home and checking up on the teenagers to ensure there was no drinking. The defendants removed all the alcohol from the basement where the party was held and instead stocked it with soda. However, the facts further show that the defendant parents were in fact at the party when people were drinking. Witnesses further confirmed that the decedent driver was drinking at the party and was impaired when he left it.

Continue reading

by

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform are accusing Johnson & Johnson of being uncooperative, providing false information, and employing delay tactics during its interactions with the House Committee. The congressional investigation launched on May 27, 2010 against Johnson & Johnson, was done so in response to widespread drug recalls by the pharmaceutical company.

According to the House Committee, Johnson & Johnson told members of its staff that the recall involves 6 million bottles of children’s medicine, but then informed the FDA that the recall actually involved more than 136 million bottles. The chairman of the House Committee, Edolphus Towns, said, “We need to know where the spin is and where the truth begins.”
Johnson & Johnson has denied the allegations claiming the company provided misinformation, instead providing an alternate interpretation for the wide discrepancy between the two values. Its spokesperson stated that the discrepancy in numbers was in response to two different questions from government officials. Johnson & Johnson says the 6 million bottles refers to the total number of the product in stores at the time of the recall, while the 136 million bottles refers to the estimated amount in the hands of customers.

However, it is unclear whether these estimates include the two new recalled products Johnson & Johnson added to its recall list as of yesterday. Benadryl Allergy Ultratab tablets and Extra Strength Tylenol have now be added to the list of recalled Johnson & Johnson products.

The already recalled products include Children’s Benadryl, Children’s Motrin, Children’s Tylenol, and Infants’ Tylenol. A complete list of all the recalled Tylenol products can be found at the company’s website.

Continue reading

by

The Union League of Chicago’s Public Affairs Committee presented a forum on money and free speech in American politics coming on the heels of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-2005 (decided January 21, 2010).

Citizens United arose out of a claim that the conservative group’s funding of “Hillary: The Movie”, a rather scathing account of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, violated the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. However, as the case progressed it came to stand for whether it was constitutional to ban corporations and labor unions from using their own general funds in support or in opposition to political candidates.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are allowed to spend freely in a supportive manner or in opposition to candidates for federal campaigns, including those for president and for the United States Congress. The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned a 20 year-old ruling that said that corporations could not use money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.

Arguments both in support of or against the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding money and free speech in America politics were led by two local Chicago legal scholars. Robert W. Bennett, a member of the law faculty of Northwestern University School of Law since 1969, took the viewpoint that the decision was wrong on the law. The opposing point of view supporting the propriety of the decision was represented by Richard A. Epstein, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, who has been teaching at University of Chicago Law School since 1972.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Supreme Court will hear an Illinois product defect case to determine whether to affirm or remand a $43 million jury verdict against Ford Motor Co. in Jablonski et al., etc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 11096. The Illinois product liability lawsuit included claims that the auto manufacturer negligently installed a rear axle fuel tank, which caused injuries to the plaintiffs following a high-speed, rear-collision auto accident.

The Illinois Appellate Court has already affirmed the lower court’s ruling, but Ford Motor Co. brings its arguments before the Illinois Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse the trial court’s rulings and resulting product defect jury verdict. Jablonski was filed after the plaintiffs were involved in a rear-end auto accident where their 1993 Lincoln Town Car was struck by a Chevrolet Lumina at 60 mph. The force of the collision propelled a pipe wrench laying in plaintiffs’ trunk through the trunk’s walls and into the fuel tank, which resulted in a fire that left the husband dead and the wife severely burned.

The 1993 Lincoln Town car was one of the four vehicles, including one designed for police, that was built with a fuel tank behind the rear axle. Plaintiffs allege that Ford was not only negligent in locating the fuel tank in that position, but it also failed to guard against and warn of the dangers of locating the fuel tank behind the rear axle.

Rather than filing a strict liability lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ brought a negligent design claim against the car manufacturer. While strict liability and negligence claims both require the plaintiff to prove that there was a design defect, the negligence claim also requires that the manufacturer knowingly failed to exercise reasonable care. Because there is an additional burden of proof under manufacturer negligence claims most product liability lawsuits include strict liability, not negligence claims.

Continue reading