Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

The Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District has affirmed a trial court’s decision regarding a settlement. Gary Hines and Lisa O’Rourke were in Chicago visiting Hines’s father, Norman, near the end of 2012. As the visit was ending, Norman drove the two to the airport. When they arrived, Norman Hines and O’Rourke began to take their luggage out of the trunk. E. James Davis was in a parking space behind them trying to pull out. His foot became trapped between the gas pedal and brake and the car accelerated striking both Norman Hines and O’Rourke and pinning them against the car. Both Norman Hines and O’Rourke suffered severe injuries and filed a lawsuit against Davis.

Hines and O’Rourke hired a lawyer to represent both of them but filed separate lawsuits. When Hines died on May 20, 2013, David Hines and Diane Galante filed as special administrators of Norman Hines’s estate and continued the lawsuit on the estate’s behalf.

Davis offered $1.3 million, the limit of his policy of insurance, in exchange for dismissal of all of the claims for both plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were given 21 days to respond, and after the 21 days the lawyer told the judge that they had failed to reach an agreement.

Continue reading

by

It has long been law in Illinois that, “a judgment against two or more defendants, whether in contract or tort, was indivisible, and could neither be vacated by a trial court or reversed by a reviewing court as to one defendant alone, even though it was not erroneous as to the others, “ Chmielewski v. Marich, 2 Ill.2d 568 (1954).

In this wrongful death case, Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. (CCIC) argued it was justified in dropping the estate of Joseph Sperl and Thomas Sanders as defendants in a Will County interpleader case.

CCIC covered $1 million in liability coverage to Dragon Fly Express and DeAn Henry, who were claimed to have caused the car crash that killed Sperl and Sanders, seriously injured William Taluc and injured several others. There was also a significant amount of property damage as a result of this collision.

Continue reading

by

On July 14, 2009, the plaintiff Evaristo Hernandez, a 39-year-old truck driver, was driving a 63-foot semi-tractor-trailer during his employment for Transforce Trucking. After Hernandez finished his deliveries that day, he began driving back to his truck yard and was traveling eastbound on 31st Street in Chicago when he stopped for a red light at Western Avenue. That intersection is a T-intersection. Hernandez put on his right turn signal to show that he was about to make a right turn.

At this intersection, 31st Street has only one lane for eastbound traffic plus an adjacent bicycle lane to the right in which cars are not permitted to drive.

The defendant, Gina Valenzio, was eastbound in her SUV and approached Hernandez’s truck from behind. Instead of stopping behind Hernandez, Valenzio drove her SUV into the bike lane along the right side of the Hernandez truck in order to make her right turn.

Continue reading

by

The Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA) provides that a tort claim against the United States “shall be forever barred” unless the claimant meets two deadlines. First, the claim must be presented to the appropriate federal agency for administrative review “within two years after [the] claim accrues.” 28 U.S.C. §2401(b). Second, if the agency denies the claim, the claimant may file a suit in federal court “within six months” of the agency’s denial. Id.

In this United States Supreme Court decision, Kwai Fun Wong and Marlene June, respondents in Nos. 13-1074 and 13-1075, respectively, each missed one of those deadlines. Wong failed to file her FTCA claim in federal court within 6 months, but argued that was only because the District Court had not permitted her to file that claim until after the period expired. June failed to present her FTCA claim to the federal agency within 2 years, but argued that her untimely filing should be excused because the government had, in her view, concealed facts vital to her claim.

In each of these cases, the District Court dismissed the FTCA claim for failure to satisfy §2401(b)’s time bars, holding that, despite any justification for delay, those time bars are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The Ninth Circuit reversed in both cases, concluding that §2401(b)’s time bars may be equitably tolled.

Continue reading

by

A jury in Georgia entered a $150 million verdict to the family of a four-year-old child killed in a Jeep Grand Cherokee that exploded and burst into flames after being rear-ended. The verdict was entered against Chrysler, which is the manufacturer of Jeeps. The trial took place in Decatur County, Georgia. The jury concluded that Chrysler acted with reckless disregard for human life in selling the family a 1999 Jeep with a gas tank mounted behind the rear axle.

The Jeep was being driven by the boy’s aunt when it was hit from behind by a pickup truck in March 2012. The fuel tank leaked, engulfed the Jeep in flames and killed the young boy.

This verdict came down nearly two years after Chrysler compromised with the Federal Safety Agency. Chrysler agreed to a scaled-down recall of some of the older model Jeeps that have rear-mounted gas tanks. The gas tanks were placed in these Jeep models in a way that provides little protection when hit from behind; this makes them susceptible to punctures and deadly fires.

Continue reading

by

 

In a case involving injury to James and Theresa Denton, who were injured by an 18-wheeler truck in Indiana, the trial court allowed the application of Illinois law, but the Illinois Appellate Court reversed finding that Indiana law applied.

James Denton was injured in Indiana when his car was hit by the truck operated by Lee Johnson, a resident of South Carolina, who was hauling a load in his truck, which originated from Illinois to South Carolina. He was working for Michigan and Delaware companies.

The defendants included Universal Am-Can Ltd., Universal Truckload Services Inc., Louis Broadwell LLC and the truck driver, David Lee Johnson. The defendants argued that Indiana law applied because Denton was injured in the final stage of a chain reaction of intermediate collisions that started when a now-deceased Indiana resident, George Kallis, drove northbound in the southbound lane of Interstate 65 in Jasper County, Ind.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District has reversed a Lake County, Ill., dismissal of a personal-injury and wrongful-death claim against Rene Melbourn who was dismissed on motion under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedures, Section 2-615, for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal with prejudice of their second amendment complaint against Melbourn. The trial judge had found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for wrongful-death based on an “in-concert” theory of liability and the negligent infliction of emotional distress. Melbourn was the only defendant involved in the appeal.

The facts of the case were that on Dec. 13, 2013, the Borcia family, including Antonio Borcia, was out boating and tubing on Lake County’s Chain of Lakes. The defendant, Melbourn, was sued along with David Hatyina, Spring Lake Marina Ltd. and Fox Waterway Agency over the death of Antonio. In this boating accident, which killed Antonio, it was alleged that Melbourn was liable for in-concert liability for the wrongful death as well as negligent infliction of emotional distress for a bystander who witnessed the collision.

The incident involved Hatyina’s 29-foot cigarette boat, named “Purple Haze,” which struck and killed Antonio on Petite Lake, in Lake Villa, Ill. Melbourn was a passenger on the boat; it was alleged she contributed to Hatyina’s consumption of alcohol and cocaine. Hatyina was impaired as he operated the boat at speeds in excess of 40 mph. Hatyina struck Antonio with the boat. Antonio suffered severe injuries that resulted in his death on July 28, 2012.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County jury found that that the defendant Jacqueline Greer was negligent in causing injury to Rosa Medina when Greer’s car broadsided Medina’s car at the intersection of Division Street and Waller Avenue in Chicago. Medina did not have a stop sign at that intersection.

The plaintiff was treated for only soft tissue injuries to her neck, back and both shoulders. She alleged that Greer ran a stop sign. Medina’s medical bills totaled $13,685. The defendant claimed her view was obstructed by the sun and a sign in the corner. Greer argued that Medina was contributorily negligent and was responsible for the crash.

The defendant’s attorneys made no offer to settle the case before this jury trial. Adam D. Shapiro of Benjamin & Shapiro represented Rosa Medina at trial and expertly presented her case to the jury, who agreed that Greer was responsible.

Continue reading

by

A federal judge has denied Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson an injunction that would have restored her to the chief justice post she lost after a referendum in April 2015.

U.S. District Judge James Peterson ruled that there was no irreparable harm in keeping Justice Patience Roggensack in the chief justice post while Abrahamson’s legal challenge in federal court continues. He added that he sees no signs of Roggensack making any wholesale changes to the court’s functions as chief justice.

Abrahamson had requested a temporary restraining order that would have blocked a constitutional amendment leading to her demotion.

Continue reading

by

In order to obtain class certification under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiffs must be able to show that their damages arose from actions attributable to the defendants who create legal liability. Plaintiffs must show at the class certification stage that they can prove, through common evidence, that all proposed class members were injured by the defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct (or if there are a few who were not, it will be possible to easily identify and exclude those individuals).

In the Comcast antitrust case, the federal court had initially granted certification in Comcast to decide whether the Daubert standard applied to class certification. The federal court ended up decertifying the antitrust class based on two flaws in the damages model offered by the plaintiffs’ expert. First, the court found the model failed to show that damages could be determined on a common basis across the class. Second, the court found that the damages model did not track the plaintiffs’ theory of liability because it included three theories of antitrust injuries the plaintiffs were no longer pursuing and did not categorize the alleged harm from each.

The Comcast case, which was handed down in 2013, is no longer an easy shield for defendants in class certification matters. Comcast does not stand for just antitrust cases. The case decision however, does require plaintiffs to produce a workable damages model that excludes plaintiffs who were not injured.

Continue reading