Archive for the ‘Premises Liability’ Category

Illinois Govt. Finds Cancer Cluster from Crestwood Water Well

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Crestwood Toxic Water 300x135 Illinois Govt. Finds Cancer Cluster from Crestwood Water WellEvery once in a while our Chicago personal injury lawyers come across a story that epitomizes the need for civil accountability for practices which endanger our public health.  Today’s Chicago Tribune reported that the Illinois Department of Public Health conducted a study of cancer rates in Crestwood between 1994 and 2006, after an April 2009 Tribune investigation revealed the town’s secret use of a contaminated water well for its drinking water.  The state’s researchers found an extraordinarily high rate of kidney cancer in men, lung cancer in men and women, and gastrointestinal cancer in men.

The tainted water well in Crestwood, from which the suburban residents unknowingly drank contaminated water for more than two decades, contained perchloroethylene (PCE), an organic solvent widely used in the dry cleaning industry, and also a probable human carcinogen.

In the State’s report to titled, “Incidence of Cancer in the Village of Crestwood, 1994-2006,” the researchers found that “it is possible that the historical presence of PCE and its degradation products in the Crestwood water contributed to the increase of these cancers.”

However, the researchers noted that “due to methodological and data limitations, the assessment could not establish with certainty this relationship, nor rule out such a possibility.”  A number of other risk factors, such as smoking, diet, hereditary background and workplace exposure to harmful chemicals, are also known to be associated with these cancers, but researchers were not able to evaluate their relative presence in the Crestwood area.  The report finds that “future monitoring of the area’s cancer incidence is needed to evaluate possible changes in cancer incidence following the discontinuation of the contaminated drinking water.”

Still, experts note that the situation in Crestwood is different from other cases where exposure to toxic chemicals is questionable.  Here, according to Ken Runkle, a state health department toxicologist, “We are dealing with a situation where we have known exposure.  That means we can view these elevated cancer levels in a different light.”  Meaning there is a higher probability of the causal relationship between the contaminated water exposure and the development of cancer.

Indeed, kidney cancer in particular is associated with exposure to perchloroethylene (PCE) — the dry cleaning solvent, and known carcinogent, found in the Crestwood drinking water well.   Some forms of lung and gastrointestinal cancer have also been linked to PCE exposure.

In response to the Tribune report, Senator Dick Durbin, Representative Bobby Rush, and Illinois Governor Quinn urged federal and state officials to investigate the Crestwood situation and, in particular, the relationship between the high cancer rates and the contaminated water well.

Litigation is already pending relating to the Crestwood contaminated well, but as more people get sick and realize that their cancer may have been caused by the negligence of their public officials, more personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits are expected to follow.

For a Free Consultation with one of our experienced Chicago personal injury attorneys at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Illinois Govt. Finds Cancer Cluster from Crestwood Water Well

Chicago Worker Killed in Loop Gas Explosion Accident

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Chicago Loop Explosion Accident 300x225 Chicago Worker Killed in Loop Gas Explosion AccidentOur Chicago construction accident attorneys are all too familiar with the potential hazards faced by Chicago construction and utility workers.  Yesterday, tragedy struck two such workers and their families.

According to several news reports, one worker is dead and another was critically injured following an explosion in a construction hole in the Chicago West Loop.  Reports indicate that the two workers were Peoples Energy employees conducting an air pressure test underneath the street at the time of the explosion.

The accident occurred yesterday afternoon around 1:30 pm at Jackson Blvd. and Wacker Dr. in Chicago.  According to Fire Media Affairs spokesman, Quention Curtis, the utility employees were conducting an underground test when an explosion occurred, and the men were taken by firefighters to John H. Stroger Cook County Hospital, initially in critical condition.  “They were pumping air through the system when something went wrong,” Curtis said. “It blew the pipe apart and it hit them.”

What, exactly, “went wrong” remains to be determined.  Peoples Energy confirmed it had crews at the scene investigating the accident.  A Peoples Energy spokeswoman confirmed crews were at the scene investigating, but did not provide further information.

There are various potential legal causes of action that may arise out of this tragic accident sounding in product liability, premises liability, construction negligence and wrongful death.  Although a direct cause of action against the worker’s employer, Peoples Energy, would be precluded based on the Illinois Workers Compensation Act, there may be other viable third-party defendants, including general contractors or subcontractors, private property owners, or the City of Chicago.

A top Chicago personal injury lawyer will not only investigate the law to determine all viable causes of action and viable defendants, but will also conduct a thorough factual investigation to determine what happened — what caused the explosion?  At Passen Law Group, we consult with top private investigators and engineers as part of our factual investigation into such an occurrence.

For a Free Consultation with an experienced Chicago personal injury attorney at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Chicago Worker Killed in Loop Gas Explosion Accident

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 save 171 16 No Relation Back in Personal Injury Complaint Adding Employer Defendant