Practice News

The Rules Committee of the Illinois Supreme Court will hear comments at a public hearing on Wednesday, July 28 on three proposals dealing with discovery issues in civil cases. The hearing is scheduled to be held at 10 a.m., 160N. LaSalle Street, Room C-500 in Chicago. One of the proposals would allow a party's discovery deposition to be used as evidence at trial in "extremely limited" circumstances at the discretion of the trial judge. The proposal would amend Rule 212 to allow as evidence a party's discovery deposition if the party deponent is unable to testify at trial because of death or infirmity and the judge finds" such evidence will do substantial justice."

Many in the legal community do not and this is a chance to make a life or death difference. By Dawn Geras At an event that I recently attended there were hundreds of lawyers and dozens of judges in attendance. I had the opportunity to ask if they knew about the Illinois “Safe Haven law”. Does it surprise you to learn that many did not? Let me ask: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE LAW? The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act became effective on August 17, 2001. The Act, often referred to as the Safe Haven law, allows a parent to anonymously relinquish an unharmed newborn up to 30 days old to a staff member at a designated safe haven. Safe havens in Illinois are hospitals, emergency medical facilities, fire houses, police stations and county sheriff stations that have staff present. All designated safe havens are required to have a safe haven sign posted in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building. Maybe you have seen this sign and wondered what it was about. The law is intended to save the lives of the youngest, most vulnerable among us: newborn babies. It provides parents who might otherwise abandon a newborn in a dumpster or other unsafe place with a responsible, legal and anonymous option. The law is simple and it works. 60 babies have been safely and legally relinquished under the law since it was enacted nearly nine years ago. Tragically, 61 other babies were unsafely and illegally abandoned. So unsafely abandoned, that 30 of them did not survive. Why isn’t the law working for more babies? How many more innocent lives will be lost? Again, ask yourself, did YOU know about the law? The problem is that most people still don’t. If an intelligent person like you didn’t know, how can we expect those who need this information to know that this option exists? Who needs to know about the law? Everyone. Babies are illegally and unsafely discarded by parents of all ages, races and socioeconomic backgrounds.

CIVIL

Krywin v. The Chicago Transit Authority

By Jean M. Prendergast, Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, P.C Today, in a 5-2 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court in Krywin v. The Chicago Transit Authority, held that a common carrier’s duty to provide passengers with a safe place to alight must yield to the natural accumulation rule. Under that rule, a landowner has no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice, snow or water. The plaintiff-passenger had fallen as she exited a train onto a slippery CTA platform. The court affirmed the appellate court and reversed the passenger’s nearly $400,000 verdict. The court also held that the CTA had no duty to identify a safer place to exit the train.  The court reasoned that the passenger failed to meet her burden to prove the feasibility of requiring the CTA to discharge all passengers safely during inclement conditions. The court took judicial notice of the magnitude of the CTA’s operations and observed that “it would be impractical to place a burden on the CTA to evaluate its train platforms” every time a train enters a station. Justice Freeman, joined by Justice Kilbride, dissented, pointing out that the majority’s holding disregarded the Local Government and Governmental Employees’ Tort Immunity Act (“Act”), which codified the natural accumulation rule, but also specifically excluded the CTA from the Act’s protection.  In addition, the dissent maintained that the majority decision is inconsistent with the court’s prior adoption of the principles stated in Section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which recognized that landowners are in a superior position to protect their invitees.

By Peter LaSorsa This article is written from BlackBerry users, however if you own a different PDA, you may check with your manufacturer and see if a similar application is available for you. Research in Motion (“RIM “), the company that produces the BlackBerry, recently released version 5 to its BlackBerry Mobile Voice System (“MVS”). I know in our busy lives we can’t pay attention to each new release of each operating system for devices we own. However, this version 5 offers something that may be of interest to you and you may want to make sure this version is loaded on your phone. This particular feature allows voice over Wi-Fi calling. (i.e. the software lets users take calls from their BlackBerry using their desk phone numbers and extensions). This is an upgrade from the previous version of the software, which only allowed calls on the cellular network. Who cares? You should because a call placed on the cellular network in not secure - but a call placed with this new version is secure because it is being placed using your existing phone system. Another words the call will be as secure as if you were sitting at your desk in your office. An incoming call will ring your office phone and BlackBerry - ensuring you will always be incommunicado.