The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Chicago and a Chicago police officer who shot and killed plaintiff’s son, Michael, on March 8, 2003.  The defendants admitted that Michael’s death was a result of the police officer “unintentionally discharging his weapon in the course of arresting someone else, constituting willful and wanton conduct” under the law as stated in Medina v. City of Chicago, 238 Ill. App. 3d 385, 392-93 (1992).

Because the defense admitted liability, the case went to trial on damages only.  In other words, the jury’s only job was to determine damages for the plaintiff’s “loss of society,” which includes “the deprivation of love, companionship, and affection from the deceased person.”  Turner v. Williams, 326 Ill. App. 3d 541, 548 (2001).

The appellate court noted that because fault was admitted, the manner in which Michael died “was wholly immaterial to the determination of loss of society.  “Defendants’ liability, willful and wanton or otherwise, was not relevant to the love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, guidance, and protection Pamela lost as a result of Michael’s death.”  Bullard v. Barnes, 102 Ill. 2d 505, 519 (1984).

The appellate court noted that despite the fact the circumstances underlying Michael’s death were irrelevant to the trial, which concerned only the amount of damages to plaintiff for loss of society, plaintiff’s counsel made the following improper comments during the trial:

• During opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel stated that Michael was “gunned down by a Chicago police officer” and was shot “with an utter indifference to and conscious disregard for his safety”
• During closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel argued to the jury that its “verdict is going to tell your entire community whether you’re willing to accept a police officer’s willful and wanton killing of a member of our society” and  “there is no greater perversion in our rules of order in our society as when a police officer, who is sworn to protect us, shoots and kills an innocent member of our society”
• During rebuttal, plaintiff’s counsel argued “It wasn’t enough for [defendants] to kill Michael Pleasance, then they had to come in here and kick dirt on his grave”

According to the court, Plaintiff’s counsel’s comments “had no place in the instant damages trial other than to inflame the passion of the jury and influence its verdict.”  The court further found that plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks “were too pervasive and insidious to have had no prejudicial effect on the jury.”  Accordingly, the court reversed the jury’s verdict and remanded the case for a new trial.

As experienced Chicago personal injury and wrongful death attorneys, we become emotionally attached to our cases and to our clients.  As the Pleasance case shows, however, especially in trials where the defense has admitted liability, plaintiff’s counsel must show some degree of emotional restraint in arguing our case to a jury.

For a Free Consultation with one of our top-rated injury attorneys, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

The issue of whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer has become a hotly debated topic. The mayor of San Francisco, California, recently proposed mandatory radiation labels on cell phones, and a senator from Maine proposed placing warnings on cell phone packaging, much like warnings found on cigarette packaging today.  On the other hand, as noted by our Chicago brain injury lawyers in an earlier blog post, there have been several studies debunking the theory that cell phone usage increases the risk of cancer.

For a Free Consultation with a Chicago-based injury and wrongful death attorney with experience representing individuals in cases involving the misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of cancer, or cancer caused by some other form of negligence, call Passen Law Group at (312) 527-4500.

Cell phones, like other electronic devices, emit a certain level of radiation. The radiation is “non-ionizing”, meaning it does not strip atoms and molecules from the tissue and alter chemical reactions in the body like ionizing radiation, or X-Rays.

Still, the United States limits the amount of radiation exposure of cell phones.  The radiation emission level of cell phones is measured according to the “specific absorption rate” or SAR, which the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association defines as “a way of measuring the quantity of radio frequency (RF) energy” absorbed by the human body.  Both American and European governments have a set SAR limit: 1.6 watts per kilogram in the US, and 2 watts per kilogram in Europe.  Any cell phones that exceed the limits cannot be sold in the US or Europe.

Radiation from cell phones comes from the transmitter, and is emitted through the antenna.  Both parts are located near the top, or where a person places a cell phone to the ear in order to hear.  It is this close proximity to the brain that raises public concerns, and has prompted studies from the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, the American Journal of Epidemiology, the EM Radiation Research Trust, the Environmental Working Group and others.  So far, the studies concerning the link between cell phone usage and cancer have been either inconclusive or contradictory.

There is general consensus among the scientific community that more studies need to be conducted to better understand long term effects from exposure to cell phone radiation.  Although cell phones are omnipresent devices today, the technology itself has only been around for 20 years, and its widespread use is even more recent.  More time is required to assess long-term risks associated with cell phone radiation exposure.  Indeed, a far-reaching, government funded study must be conducted to ensure we are not seriously endangering the public.

At Passen Law Group, our Chicago personal injury lawyers are committed vigorously representing individuals and their families against powerful corporate interests and negligent or reckless individuals or entities.  To speak with one of our injury attorneys, call Passen Law Group today at (312) 527-4500 for a Free Consultation.

The fine trumps a previous fine of $21 million, also levied against BP in 2005. A press release from OSHA states that BP was issued 270 notices of “failure to abate” per the settlement agreement for the 2005 explosion. BP was also cited for “439 new willful violations for failures to follow industry-accepted controls on the pressure relief safety systems and other process safety management violations.” In the four years BP was given to comply with the settlement, it failed to do so while also failing to maintain safety standards not previously identified.  The personal injury and wrongful death lawyers will certainly attempt to use this information in the civil litigation to show that BP was on notice of dangerous safety violations.

OSHA safety violations are no trivial matter, regardless of workplace. As evidenced in this case, violations can lead to permanent injury or death.

Most private businesses in the United States must adhere to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Act outlines specific rules for the safety and well being of all workers, whether are a refinery, at a construction site or in an office. Employers must provide “a place of employment [that is free] free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” Such hazards include:
•    Vehicles such as forklifts
•    Ladders
•    Scaffolding
•    Hazardous materials
•    Machinery

There are also regulations regarding safety, such as placement of medical and first aid kits, fire extinguishers, proper ventilation and protective devices or coverings for workers as well as tools.

More states, such as Illinois, are also being granted federal approval to administer their own safety and health plan for public employees, such as state and local government workers and public educators. Typically, public workers are exempt, or excluded from OSHA protections.

If you or a loved on has been seriously injured in the workplace, and you suspect safety violations were violated, contact an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyerat Passen Law Group today.  Call us at (312) 527-4500 for a free consultation.