Archive for January, 2010

Tort Reform is a ‘Distraction’ in Health Care Debate

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

As Congress continues to grapple with health care reform, many conservatives and lobbyists for the insurance industry have called for tort reform as a way to reduce the costs of health care.  However, nearly every independent health economist and legal expert who has studied the issue has found that tort reform would have virtually no impact on health care costs.  These findings come as no surprise to our Chicago wrongful death lawyers, who represent families that have lost their loved ones due to preventable medical errors, and who fight back against the powerful insurance lobby.

A recent article from the Washington Independent notes the “undercurrent” of complaints made by health insurance companies, hospitals and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care cost.  Yet, the leading economists and legal experts have found that malpractice liability costs “are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost — both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.”

Why, then, do some politicians backed by the insurance lobby claim that medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control and are a main cause of rising health care costs?  “It’s really just a distraction,” says Tom Baker, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.”  Professor Baker notes that  “if you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about [a savings of] 1.5 percent of health care costs.  So we’re not talking about real money.”

Another Harvard professor of Law and Public Health, Michelle Mello, agrees.  “If you were to list the top five or ten things that you could do to bring down health care costs, [tort reform] would not be on the list.”

Our Chicago personal injury lawyers are proud to represent individuals and families whose lives have been forever impacted by the negligence or recklessness of others.  Call (312) 527-4500 for a Free Consultation with one of our attorneys.

  • Share/Bookmark

Illinois Motor Vehicle Fatalities Lowest Since 1921

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

The Illinois State Police recently announced that 2009 was the safest year on Illinois roadways since 1921, in terms of the number of traffic fatalities.  The number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2009 dropped below 1,000 for the first time in nearly 90 years.  The number of traffic fatalities in 2009 was more than 100 fewer than in 2008, and nearly 300 fewer than in 2007.

Governor Quinn attributes this downward trend to a number of factors, including the increase in seat belt usage, and the public safety initiatives of the Illinois Department of Transportation, Illinois State Police and local law enforcement.  Specifically, law enforcement has targeted the “Fatal Five” traffic violations, which cause many deadly car and truck accidents: (1) speeding; (2) safety belts; (3) improper lane usage; (4) following too closely; and (5) driving under the influence.

Further, as other blog posts from our Chicago personal injury lawyers have noted, this year two new laws take effect to combat “texting while driving.”  Specifically, the laws:

  • Prohibit drivers under the age of 19 from using a cell phone while driving.  The law also prohibits drivers of all ages from using a cell phone while driving in a school zone or construction zone.
  • Prohibits sending, typing or reading text messages, or surfing the internet while driving.

For a Free Consultation with one of our Chicago car accident attorneys, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

  • Share/Bookmark

No ‘Relation Back’ in Personal Injury Complaint Adding Employer Defendant

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

People sometimes wonder why it is important to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer as soon as possible if you suspect an injury was caused by the carelessness or recklessness of another.  One important reason is to identify all possible defendants before the statute of limitations (the time in which a lawsuit must be filed) expires.

Consider the following situation:  The plaintiff is involved in a car accident caused by the defendant, who was driving his mother’s car at the time of the accident.  The plaintiff files a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant within the appropriate statute of limitations period (2 years from the date of the accident).  During discovery, the plaintiff learns that the defendant was driving the vehicle within the scope of his employment as a salesman for X Corporation.  Plaintiff amends her complaint to add X Corporation as an additional defendant — however, by this time, the statute of limitations has expired.

The question becomes:  Does plaintiff’s amended complaint “relate back” to the original lawsuit so as to avoid being dismissed based on statute of limitations grounds?  In Wilson v. Molda, No. 1-09-0386 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 13, 2009), the Illinois appellate court answered “no”.

The facts in Wilson were identical to the fact-pattern described above.  In response to motions to dismiss brought by the defendant’s employer, Metrolift Inc., based on statute of limitations grounds, the plaintiff’s lawyer made two arguments: (1) plaintiff’s lawsuit against the original defendant should satisfy the statute of limitations based on the “respondeat superior” relationship between the defendant and his employer; and (2) the amended complaint should “relate back” to the original complaint based on section 2-616(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The court rejected both of plaintiff’s arguments.

First, the court found no basis in any Illinois statute or any Illinois case law to support the contention that because the employer was jointly and severally liable for the employee’s conduct under the theory of respondeat superior, the timely filing of a lawsuit against the employee preserves the plaintiff’s claim against the employer.  The court “decline[d] the plaintiff’s invitation to rewrite the existing statute of limitations, as we believe that is the job of the legislature.”

Second, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim against Metrolift does not “relate back” to the original complaint under section 2-616 (b) of the Code.  The court found that section (b) permits a plaintiff, under certain circumstances, to add claims to an existing action.  By its own terms, subsection (b) applies only to the addition of “causes of action, cross claims or defenses.”  Here, plaintiff was not seeking to add a new claim, but instead was seeking to add a new party to an existing action.

Instead, the court found that subsection (d) of section 2-626 deals with adding new parties, but only in cases of “mistaken identity.”  The plaintiff admitted that this is not a case of mistaken identity, and therefore subsection (d) did not apply.  Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s action against the defendant’s employer based on the statute of limitations.

For a Free Consultation with one of or top-rated Chicago injury and wrongful death lawyers, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

  • Share/Bookmark

Winter Slip & Fall Liability for Illinois Property Owners

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Chicago in the winter gives rise to an increased number of slip and fall injuries, sometimes resulting in permanent injury or even death.  A general issue our Chicago personal injury lawyers are often asked by prospective clients is under what circumstances are business owners or other private or public entities liable in serious slip and fall accidents.

In Chicago, the city enacted section 10-8-180 of the Chicago Municipal Code, which states that, in general, “every owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person having charge of any building or lot of ground in the city abutting upon any public way or public place shall remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk in front of such building or lot of ground.” In other words, people are generally charged with the responsibility to shovel and remove ice or snow from the section of sidewalk in front of their home or business.

However, the questions posed to our Chicago premises liability attorneys becomes  (1) what are the repercussions for failing to remove ice/snow; and, (2) what are the repercussions for removing ice/snow in a negligent manner?  The ordinance appears to address only the first question.

Section 10-8-190 states that “any person, who removes snow or ice from the public sidewalk or street, shall not, as a result of his acts or omissions in such removal, be liable for civil damages.” In other words, the Chicago ordinance suggests that a business or property owner may be considered negligent for failing to shovel, salt or remove ice from the sidewalk, but not for removing snow/ice in a careless manner.

More generally, Illinois follows the “natural accumulation” rule (codified in the Snow and Ice Removal Act, 745 ILCS 75/2 (2006)) for slip and fall accidents, which states that a property owner has no duty to remove a natural accumulation of snow or ice from property.  However, a property owner may be held liable for a “voluntarily undertaking” to remove ice and snow, and doing so in a negligent manner.  Or, a property owner may also be held liable for slips and falls on an “unnatural accumulation” of ice or snow (often caused by the negligent snow/ice removal).  or slip an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice or aggravates a natural condition.

Public entities are also generally subject to the natural accumulation rule under the Governmental Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/3-102 -105(a) (2008), which provides that  public entities owe a duty of ordinary care in the maintenance of its property, but is not liable “for an injury caused by the effect of weather” on public property.
It is oftentimes difficult to determine whether a person slipped and fell on a “natural” or “unnatural” accumulation of ice and snow, as noted by various Illinois courts.  Because of the general duty of landowners to maintain their property in a reasonably safe manner, Illinois courts oftentimes deny summary judgment to defendants on this basis, and allow a jury to decide the issue of natural or unnatural accumulation of ice or snow.

There are various other issues that are important to flesh out in slip and fall or other premises liability cases, including “notice” of the dangerous condition, including the length of time the dangerous condition existed and prior complaints to the defendant property owners.

If you have been seriously and permanently injured in a slip & fall or other accident that you believe was caused by the carelessness or recklessness of another individual or entity, call (312) 527-4500 for a Free Consultation with one of Passen Law Group’s top-rated Chicago injury attorneys.

  • Share/Bookmark