Stapleton v. Moore: Cross-examination of a medical expert with a learned treatiseBy Hon. Daniel T. GillespieCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2010In Stapleton, the trial judge allowed defense counsel to cross-examine plaintiff’s expert with a medical article that was not disclosed in discovery. The appellate court affirmed.
Common carrier’s duty to passengers versus the natural accumulation ruleBy John J. HolevasCivil Practice and Procedure, September 2010In Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the consequences of requiring the CTA to inspect every platform for a natural accumulation of snow and ice every time a train was to discharge or take on passengers would bring the transit system to a standstill.
A procedural look at the exclusive remedy defenseBy Kingshuk K. RoyTort Law, September 2010A brief overview of the exclusive remedy defense and its procedural application in light of the recent Fifth District decision of Reed v. White.
Strip club may be liable for patron’s drunk drivingBy Robert T. ParkCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2010Plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s employees removed the intoxicated decedents from its club, ordered and assisted them into their car, and sent them away knowing the driver was drunk.
Condition, cause AND foreseeabilityBy Albert E. DurkinTort Law, April 2010When an attorney is faced with questions as to when conduct is a cause and when it is only a condition, close attention must be paid to a plaintiff’s conduct.
What hath Hudson wrought?By Patricia A. ZimmerTort Law, April 2010If you decide that you must take a voluntary dismissal in the face of a prior dismissal on the merits of some claim in your suit, an Agreed Order of voluntary dismissal should reference Hudson and state that the defendants are waiving the res judicatadefense should plaintiff decide to refile.
Decisions illustrate difficulties of slip and fall casesBy Robert T. ParkCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2010Two recent decisions illustrate the requirements and attendant difficulties of successfully prosecuting a plaintiff’s personal injury claim arising from a slip and fall accident in Illinois.
Recovering the value of “free” caretaking by an adult’s parentsBy Dennis M. LynchTort Law, March 2010A tortfeasor cannot seek to shirk responsibility for caretaking services because the caretaking was provided by the adult’s parents, and not by some third party.
Thornton, known for emotional distress, is notable for the Single Recovery Rule and set offsBy John B. KincaidCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2010Thornton v. Garcini, (2009 WL 3471065) was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in a concise compact opinion authored by Justice Kilbride on October 29, 2009. The case raises issues unique to the civil practice arena as well as the medical negligence forum. As of the preparation of these remarks, the opinion remains subject to revision or withdrawal.
Admissibility of vehicle impact photographsBy Timothy W. KellyTort Law, February 2010The standard for the admissibility of photographs of a motor vehicle collision depicting minimal damage to the vehicles in a personal injury trial has been debated since the First District Appellate Court’s opinion inDicosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill. App. 3d 530 (1st Dist. 2003).
Forum non Conveniens clarified: Glass v. DOT Transportation, Inc.By Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie & Matthew FriedlanderCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2010For many judges and lawyers in Illinois, the doctrine of forum non conveniens appears to be a convoluted discretionary tool. Unlike a motion to transfer venue, which is a purely procedural matter, the doctrine offorum non conveniens allows the judge to transfer a case if he or she decides that hearing a case in the plaintiff’s choice of forum is unfair to the defendant or the public. The doctrine itself applies on an interstate and intrastate basis so long as venue is proper in both forums.
Nonlawyer advocates in administrative proceedingsBy Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, February 2010In Grafner v. Department of Employment Security, 914 N.E.2d 520 (1st Dist. 2009), the court considered whether a nonlawyer hired from an employer services company could represent a former employer in an administrative proceeding before the Department of Employment Security (DES) in a case involving disputed employment compensation benefits allegedly owed a former employee.
Tort immunity in medical malpractice casesBy Thomas Q. Keefe, III & Thomas Q. Keefe, Jr.Tort Law, February 2010Public entities and public employees are immune from allegations of failure to diagnose and misdiagnosis, as well as allegations of failure to perform adequate exams (but not for improper treatment after diagnosis).
Award of costs to defendants as a condition to granting plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissalBy Bridget A. MitchellCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2010After reviewing the facts of the case and applicable law, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified the court’s order to state that costs awarded were due at the time of refiling the lawsuit but not as a condition to refiling the lawsuit.
IPI No. 105.01: Did the Supreme Court Committee fix it or break what wasn’t broken?By Daniel P. WurlTort Law, January 2010A look at the reasons for the revisions made to the IPI 105.01 by the Supreme Court Committee, the appellate court decisions on which the Committee relied for the revisions, and the four appellate court cases that have addressed IPI 105.01 since the 2006 revisions were made.
Appellate court rejects prescribed means exception to natural accumulation doctrineBy John J. HolevasCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2009In Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 2590089 (1st Dist., Aug. 20, 2009), the First District Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, rejecting adoption of the “prescribed means” exception to the common law natural accumulation doctrine.
Circuit court had no jurisdiction to consider untimely filingsBy Robert T. ParkCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2009In Keener v. City of Herrin, 2009 WL 3212336(Oct. 8, 2009), the city police arrested Chelsea Keener, an 18-year-old girl, for underage intoxication.
eDiscovery issues: Authenticating e-mail produced in discoveryBy Scott A. Carlson & Jay C. CarleCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2009This is the first in a series of articles about electronic discovery or “eDiscovery.” eDiscovery means a lot of different things to a lot of different people and each article will take on some discrete aspect of eDiscovery.
The ethics of fee sharing in tort law casesBy Albert E. DurkinTort Law, October 2009In the field of plaintiff personal injury litigation, a substantial amount of business is received on a referral basis. Tort practitioners commonly are referred cases from fellow lawyers who do not practice in that chosen field.
When consultants’ opinions are discoverableBy Lauryn E. Parks & James F. McCluskeyTort Law, October 2009The purpose of Illinois Rule 201(b)(3), as well as other comparable rules, is focused on protecting the identity of the consultant in order to encourage the communication of expertise.
All rules are made to be brokenBy Maxine Weiss KunzYoung Lawyers Division, August 2009A fictional scenario illustrating that when you find yourself between a rock and a hard place, perhaps it is time for the exception to become the rule.
Choice of law in multi-state tort casesBy Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2009Gregory v. Beazer East provides a useful reminder of basic choice-of-law principles, including depecage and the “factual contacts” test.
Federal caselaw updateEmployee Benefits, December 2008On October 7, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kennedy v. Plan Admin. for DuPont Savings and Invest. Plan (No. 07-636).
Maintaining separate actions in various judicial circuits in Illinois and/or other statesBy John J. HolevasCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2008In re: Marriage of Gary, 894 N.E.2d 809 (2d Dist. 2008), the Appellate Court for the Second District clarified under what circumstances a trial court may enjoin the parties to a suit from maintaining separate causes of action in multiple Illinois circuit courts or in other states.
Unsettling ruling on settlement agreement: Common provision declared unenforceable as penaltyBy J. Matthew PfeifferCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2008A recent opinion from the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois holds that a clause in a settlement agreement providing for an acceleration of the amount due in the event of a breach thereof without any express reasonable basis for such acceleration constitutes a penalty and, therefore, is unenforceable.
Wills v. Foster and the “reasonable value” approach to the collateral source ruleBy Mark Rouleau & Ehsan EftekhariCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2008The collateral source rule has been the subject of numerous appellate cases in Illinois in the last several years, recently culminating in the unanimous Illinois Supreme Court decision of Wills v. Foster, Docket No. 140538, 2008 WL 2446696 (June 19, 2008), written by Chief Justice Thomas.
Who should speak on civility in civil litigation?By Kimball R. AndersonCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2008In September 2005, the Supreme Court of Illinois announced two new programs aimed at promoting lawyer civility.
