Use of Emotional Distress InstructionBy Nicholas T. MotherwayTort Law, April 2023In at least the past 20 years it is established that emotional distress is a proper element of damages in all personal torts and no expert evidence is needed to prove emotional distress.
Premises Liability: Tort Liability of InstallerBy Brion W. DohertyTort Law, February 2023From time to time, a person or company that installs products at a premises will install them in a form or fashion that renders the premises dangerous.
Truck Crashes on the RiseBy Pamela Sakowicz MenakerTort Law, February 2023An overview of a November 2022 Center for Justice & Democracy study, which examines the concerns of the trucking industry.
Evidence of the Inability to have Children in a Wrongful Death Claim Involving the Loss of a ChildBy Jeffrey A. Schulkin & Haadee M. SiddiquiTort Law, January 2023Given the 2007 amendment to the Wrongful Death Act, evidence that parents are unable to have any children should be relevant and admissible as evidence in support of their grief, sorrow, and mental anguish when they are pursuing a claim for the loss of a child.
Confusing Duty and Breach of Duty in Motion PracticeBy Dennis M. LynchTort Law, October 2022Motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment often confuse and conflate the issue of duty and breach of duty in an attempt to rob a factual question—breach of duty—from the jury by dressing it as a legal question—duty.
Medical Malpractice Period of Limitations: Tolling in Cases of DisabilityBy Mark Benfield & Stephen LaneTort Law, October 2022The period of limitations for medical malpractice cases is set forth in 735 ILCS 5/13-212, which generally provides a two-year statute of limitations and four-year statute of repose.
Negligent Security Claims Against a Landlord, Property Manager, and/or Security CompanyBy Brion W. DohertyTort Law, September 2022Third-party criminal attacks are generally not something for which an owner, operator, or security company will be liable, however, this general rule has limitations that require examination when investigating such cases.
Res Judicata and Voluntary DismissalBy Mark Benfield & Sam BrolleyTort Law, February 2022An examination of the application of res judicata when one of the claims in a cause of action is dismissed with prejudice and others are subsequently dismissed without prejudice.
A Primer on Illinois Prejudgment InterestBy Jason G. SchutteTort Law, January 2022A summary of the recently enacted Public Act 102-6, which expands prejudgment interest in the state of Illinois.
Case Note: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. ElmoreBy George LeynaudTort Law, April 2021A summary and analysis of the appellate court’s decision in the case of State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Elmore, which held that under State Farm’s definition of the term “mechanical device,” liability coverage would be afforded only for injuries arising when grain is unloaded from the insured truck by hand or by a hand truck.
Illinois Plaintiff as Bystander CasesBy Greg Patricoski & Jennie ChristensenTort Law, March 2020An analysis of how damages are awarded in “plaintiff as bystander” cases where the plaintiff did not incur severe physical injury but suffers an emotional disturbance as the result of negligent physical contact.
Premises liability: Open and obvious claimsBy Brion W. DohertyTort Law, November 2018In cases involving a dangerous condition that is arguably open and obvious, a plaintiff must be able to clearly delineate the circumstances under which the plaintiff encountered the condition in a way that will create a question of fact about whether or not it was reasonable, under the circumstances, to appreciate the dangerous condition.
The Seventh Circuit rejects plaintiff’s cancer causation theoryBy Robert H. Riley & Brian O. WatsonBench and Bar, September 2017The Seventh Circuit recently rejected the plaintiff’s expert’s causation theory that “each and every exposure” or the “cumulative exposure” may satisfy the plaintiff’s causation burden.
Using safety ordinances to establish the duty of care in premises casesBy Bradley N. PollockTort Law, October 2016In premises liability cases, the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, as well as the open-and-obvious doctrine, are part of the analysis of whether a defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff.
The ambiguity of intent in the tort of batteryBy Michael AndersonBench and Bar, July 2015The author discusses the two main theories of intent recognized across jurisdictions, explains what is at stake in choosing one over the other, outlines Illinois’ law regarding the matter, looks into whether the new Restatement (Third) of Torts provides any clarity on what “intent” requires, describes how other jurisdictions have interpreted the Restatement, and shows how this problem may best be solved.
Contribution—An updateBy Samuel A. Kavathas, Jr.Tort Law, June 2006This article is intended as an update based on some recent cases regarding contribution. One area which is always a source of confusion is whether or not a party can include a settling defendant on the verdict form pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1117.
Increased risk of future injury found compensableBy Albert E. Durkin, Jr.Tort Law, December 2002In a ruling that surprised many, the Illinois Supreme Court recently overturned nearly 80 years of existing law by holding that a plaintiff is entitled to obtain compensation for a future injury, stemming from a previous injury, even if it is not reasonably certain to occur.
“Is an excluded named driver really excluded?” and “Never take no for an answer”By George G. LeynaudTort Law, December 2002Recently, our office inherited a client who had been informed by prior counsel of the potential inability to collect insurance proceeds from a single vehicle collision that resulted in her husband's death.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoTort Law, October 2002The first article in this edition is written by Michael Perona of Perona Law Offices in Peru, Illinois. Mr. Perona provides a thorough analysis of whether a one-year or two-year statute of limitations applies when minors have a tort claim against a local governmental entity or employee, specifically a school district.
