Archive for April, 2009

Violation of Building Codes Insufficient to Show Proximate Cause of Fall in Illinois Wrongful Death Action

Thursday, April 30th, 2009

stair building code violations 225x300 Violation of Building Codes Insufficient to Show Proximate Cause of Fall in Illinois Wrongful Death ActionIllinois premises liability lawyers take note:  Evidence of code violations, without evidence regarding “proximate cause”, is insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment.  An Illinois appellate court for the First District recently held that a widow of man who died after falling down the back staircase of their apartment complex could not make a wrongful death or premises liability case against the property owners because she could not show that a defect in the stairs proximately caused the accident.  Henriette Strutz v. Christopher Vicere and Christene Vicere, No. 1-07-2564 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2009).

The widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the owners of their apartment complex after her husband fell from the back staircase of their two-flat apartment, and died as a result of cervical fractures from the fall.  There were no witnesses to the husband’s fall, however the plaintiff testified that she found him at the bottom of the stairs and he told her that he had fallen over the railing.  Also, a medical expert testified that the husband’s fall was “consistent” with a head-first fall.

The plaintiff retained an architectural expert, who testified that the defendants failed to maintain the stairs and the railing in a reasonably safe condition.  Specifically, the expert opined that the staircase was unreasonably dangerous for a number of reasons, including that they were too steep and inadequately lit.  Further, the expert testified that the stairs were in violation of the City of Chicago’s Building Code.

However, fatal to the plaintiff’s case was the fact that neither the expert, nor any other witness, testified that the stairs defects “proximately caused” the husband’s injury (and subsequent death).  As Justice Coleman stated, “Violations of an ordinance or failure to comply with the building code, by themselves without evidence that the violations caused the injury, do not establish proximate cause.”  Instead, “there has to be a link that the dangerous condition was a cause of the fall.”

This case should come as no surprise to experienced Chicago personal injury lawyers.  However, it reinforces the importance of not only choosing your experts wisely, but making sure they are able to provide you with the opinions necessary to prove your case and survive a motion for summary judgment.  This case also highlights the importance of solidifying “proximate cause” evidence in EVERY personal injury case in Illinois.

share save 171 16 Violation of Building Codes Insufficient to Show Proximate Cause of Fall in Illinois Wrongful Death Action

Truck Accident Law: Lawyer’s Overview of the Federal Trucking Regulations

Monday, April 27th, 2009

chicago truck accident lawyer Truck Accident Law:  Lawyers Overview of the Federal Trucking RegulationsIllinois Truck Accident Lawyers and attorneys involved in truck accident litigation nationwide must have a firm understanding of the various applicable state and Federal Trucking Regulations.  The federal regulations appear in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 C.F.R. §§ 350-399).

The federal regulations govern all vehicles involved in interstate traffic.  These regulations are extensive and often confusing, especially to a novice attorney.  An experienced truck accident lawyer can navigate through these regulations and explain how they apply to your truck accident case.

The following summarizes key provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations most common in truck accident litigation:

49 C.F.R. § 382 – Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing
The purpose of this section is to establish programs to prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances by drivers of commercial motor vehicles, including truck drivers.  This provision applies to all drivers of commercial vehicles in the US and their employers, with some limited exceptions. Drivers who are required to have a commercial drivers license (CDL) under Section 383, which includes truck drivers, must be tested if they drive a vehicle that weighs more than 26,000 pounds, has a gross vehicle range of over 26,000 pounds, is designed to carry 16 or more passengers (including the driver) or is used to carry hazardous materials.

49 C.F.R. § 383 – Commercial Driver’s License Standards; Requirements and Penalties
By requiring drivers of certain vehicles to obtain a commercial drivers license (CDL), this provision aims to reduce or prevent truck accidents. Generally, drivers must have a CDL if they drive a vehicle of more than 26,000 pounds, transport themselves and 15 or more passengers or carry hazardous materials.  Therefore, most truck drivers must carry a valid CDL and receive appropriate training regarding the safe operation of their vehicles.

49 C.F.R. § 391 – Qualification of Drivers
Tractor-trailer drivers or drivers or other commercial vehicle weighing over 10,000 pounds, carrying 16 or more passengers or transporting hazardous materials must comply with additional regulations. Such drivers must be at least 21 years old, speak English, be physically able to safely operate a truck, have a valid CDL and must not have been disqualified for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, committing a felony, leaving the scene of an accident, refusing to take an alcohol test or any other reason.

49 C.F.R. § 392 – Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles
Truck drivers, as well as the trucking company  responsible for the management, maintenance, operation or driving of any commercial motor vehicles or the hiring, supervision, training or dispatching of drivers must comply with federal regulations.   Drivers may not drive while sick or tired and may not use illegal drugs, must obey traffic laws, load cargo safely, perform periodic inspections and drive cautiously in hazardous conditions.

49 C.F.R. § 393 – Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation
The purpose of this section is to ensure that trucks driven on interstate roads are safe. Specific regulations pertain to lighting devices and reflectors, brakes and brake performance, tires, emergency equipment, shifting or falling cargo, securement systems, frames, doors, hood, seats, bumpers, wheels and steering wheel systems.

49 C.F.R. § 395 – Hours of Service of Drivers
The Hours-of-Service regulations put limits in place for when and how long commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers may drive.  A driver may not drive beyond the 14th consecutive hour after coming on duty, following 10 consecutive hours off duty, and off-duty time does not extend the 14-hour period.  Further, a driver may drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty, and may not drive after 60/70 hours on duty in 7/8 consecutive days.  A driver may restart a 7/8 consecutive day period after taking 34 or more consecutive hours off duty.  Drivers using the sleeper berth provision must take at least 8 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth, plus a separate 2 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth, off duty, or any combination of the two.

The term, “On-Duty” is broadly defined to include the time a driver begins to work until the driver is relieved of all responsibility, including:

  • Time at a plant, terminal or other  facility of a motor carrier or shipper
  • Time inspecting or servicing the truck
  • Driving time
  • All non-driving time in the truck  (except for time resting in the sleeper)
  • Time repairing the vehicle or obtaining help to repair it
  • Time spent providing a drug test, including travel time
  • Time performing any work for a common or private motor carrier
  • Time spent performing any compensated work for a non-motor carrier business

49 C.F.R. § 396 – Inspection, Repair and Maintenance
Under this section, the motor carrier is responsible for ensuring that all parts are in proper working condition and must maintain repair and inspection records.  Drivers must inspect their trucks at the start of each day and report any defects — and may not drive a vehicle that is defective or likely to break down.

49 C.F.R. § 397 – Transportation of Hazardous Materials
These provisions apply to drivers of commercial motor vehicles that transport hazardous materials. They also apply to motor carriers who are involved with transporting hazardous materials and employees of these carriers who perform supervisory duties related to the transportation of hazardous materials. Generally,  the driver of a commercial motor vehicle that is carrying explosives cannot leave the vehicle unattended. There are also restrictions about where a driver carrying explosive materials can park, and smoking is not allowed within 25 feet of a truck containing explosives or flammable materials.

In sum, to successfully represent individuals injured in a truck accident or tractor-trailer accident, a personal injury attorney must be well-versed in the Federal Trucking Regulations.  To speak with a Top Chicago Truck Accident Lawyer, contact Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Truck Accident Law:  Lawyers Overview of the Federal Trucking Regulations

Illinois Appellate Court Extends Damages for Wrongful Birth Actions

Monday, April 20th, 2009

wrongful birth lawyer 300x199 Illinois Appellate Court Extends Damages for Wrongful Birth ActionsIn a win for victims of medical malpractice involving “wrongful birth,” an Illinois Appellate Court recently extended the damages available in such actions.  Illinois medical malpractice lawyers handling wrongful birth cases must take note of this decision.

This author has previously written about the need to extend damages for wrongful birth causes of action in Illinois.  As discussed in the seminal Illinois Supreme Court in Siemieniec v. Lutheran General Hospital, 117 Ill. 2d 230 (Ill. 1987), “wrongful birth” refers to claims for relief of parents who allege they would have avoided conception or terminated the pregnancy by abortion but for the negligence of those charged with the prenatal testing, genetic prognosticating, or counseling parents as to the likelihood of giving birth to a physically or mentally impaired child.  As a “proximate result” of the negligently performed genetic counseling or prenatal testing, the parents were “foreclosed from making an informed decision whether to conceive a potentially handicapped child or, in the event of a pregnancy, to terminate the same.”  Siemieniec, 117 Ill. 2d at 235.

The Supreme Court held that the damages available in wrongful birth actions include “extraordinary expenses – medical, hospital, institutional, educational and otherwise – which are necessary to properly manage and treat the congenital or genetic disorder.”  Id. at 260.

However, more recently in Clark v. Children’s Memorial Hospital, 2009 WL 987413 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. April 9, 2009), the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District extended the damages available to victims of wrongful birth.

First, the court held that the parents of a severely disabled child can recover damages for his care after he reaches the age of majority, an issue left unresolved in Siemieniec.  According to the court, such damages “rightfully compensate the parents for the costs they will incur for caring for their disabled child.”

Second, the court allowed the parents to pursue their claim for “negligent infliction of emotional distress”, which the court found satisfied the “zone-of-physical-danger rule” articulated in Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority, 98 Ill. 2d 546 (Ill. 1983).  Rather than finding the parents to be innocent “bystanders”, the court held the parents adequately pleaded they were “within the zone-of-physical-danger caused by defendants’ alleged negligence.”

share save 171 16 Illinois Appellate Court Extends Damages for Wrongful Birth Actions