Premises liability: Open and obvious claimsBy Brion W. DohertyTort Law, November 2018In cases involving a dangerous condition that is arguably open and obvious, a plaintiff must be able to clearly delineate the circumstances under which the plaintiff encountered the condition in a way that will create a question of fact about whether or not it was reasonable, under the circumstances, to appreciate the dangerous condition.
The Seventh Circuit rejects plaintiff’s cancer causation theoryBy Robert H. Riley & Brian O. WatsonBench and Bar, September 2017The Seventh Circuit recently rejected the plaintiff’s expert’s causation theory that “each and every exposure” or the “cumulative exposure” may satisfy the plaintiff’s causation burden.
Using safety ordinances to establish the duty of care in premises casesBy Bradley N. PollockTort Law, October 2016In premises liability cases, the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, as well as the open-and-obvious doctrine, are part of the analysis of whether a defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff.
The ambiguity of intent in the tort of batteryBy Michael AndersonBench and Bar, July 2015The author discusses the two main theories of intent recognized across jurisdictions, explains what is at stake in choosing one over the other, outlines Illinois’ law regarding the matter, looks into whether the new Restatement (Third) of Torts provides any clarity on what “intent” requires, describes how other jurisdictions have interpreted the Restatement, and shows how this problem may best be solved.
Contribution—An updateBy Samuel A. Kavathas, Jr.Tort Law, June 2006This article is intended as an update based on some recent cases regarding contribution. One area which is always a source of confusion is whether or not a party can include a settling defendant on the verdict form pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1117.
Increased risk of future injury found compensableBy Albert E. Durkin, Jr.Tort Law, December 2002In a ruling that surprised many, the Illinois Supreme Court recently overturned nearly 80 years of existing law by holding that a plaintiff is entitled to obtain compensation for a future injury, stemming from a previous injury, even if it is not reasonably certain to occur.
“Is an excluded named driver really excluded?” and “Never take no for an answer”By George G. LeynaudTort Law, December 2002Recently, our office inherited a client who had been informed by prior counsel of the potential inability to collect insurance proceeds from a single vehicle collision that resulted in her husband's death.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoTort Law, October 2002The first article in this edition is written by Michael Perona of Perona Law Offices in Peru, Illinois. Mr. Perona provides a thorough analysis of whether a one-year or two-year statute of limitations applies when minors have a tort claim against a local governmental entity or employee, specifically a school district.
Impact of criminal proceedings on civil casesBy Mark RouleauTort Law, October 2002This article reviews some of the decisions regarding the impact of convictions, pleas and stipulations to facts in criminal proceedings on subsequent civil cases.
Co-editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoTort Law, May 2002The first article in this edition is by Martin J. O'Hara of Quinlan & Carroll, Ltd. Mr. O'Hara's article addresses the Fifth District's decision of McIntosh v. Cueto, which holds that a plaintiff must formally plead a claim for fraudulent concealment and/or equitable estoppel before contending that a defense attorney or other professional is estopped from asserting the applicable statute of limitations for professional malpractice.
Is liability coverage afforded under homeowners policy for negligent entrustment?By James P. Ginzkey & Jeffrey AbbottTort Law, May 2002Junior wrecks a family motor vehicle, injuring someone in the process; but the family automobile policy specifically excludes Junior or excludes the vehicle he was driving (i.e. motorcycle, 4-wheeler, etc.).
Closing argument: avoiding formulas when arguing pain and sufferingBy Dennis Ryan, Jr.Tort Law, September 2001"Pain and suffering" is a mental state that is a compensable element of damage in a personal injury case. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. v. Thil, 228 Ill. 223, 81 N.E. 857 (1907).
Co-editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoTort Law, September 2001The first article in this edition is by Scott Gibson of the law firm of Scott B. Gibson, Ltd. in Waukegan. Mr. Gibson's article deals with the applicability of section 3-108 of the Governmental Tort Immunity Act.
Governmental tort immunity— claims for willful and wanton misconduct are reinstated by the legislatureBy Scott B. GibsonTort Law, September 2001Absolute governmental tort immunity pursuant to the supervision statute continues to be misapplied and confused by practitioners and the judiciary alike due to the closely intertwined and simultaneously conflicting actions by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois State Legislature.
Co-editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoTort Law, June 2001The first article in this edition is by The Honorable Edna Turkington-Viktora. Judge Turkington-Viktora discusses the relevancy of a party's failure to possess a valid driver's license in a negligence action.
Co-editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoTort Law, March 2001The first article in this edition is written by Mark A. Rouleau of The Law Offices of Mark A. Rouleau in Rockford, Illinois. Mark Rouleau also serves as the current chair of the Tort Law Section Council.
Supreme court holds HMOs may be liable for institutional negligenceBy Daniel P. WurlTort Law, March 2001While it is common knowledge that a health care institution can be vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees and agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior, litigators sometimes overlook a claim against the health care institution itself for its own independent negligent acts or omissions.
Supreme Court hands victory to railroad industry in crossing caseBy Timothy J. CavanaghTort Law, November 2000Earlier this year the United States Supreme Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the case of Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Shanklin, No. 99-312 (2000 U.S. Lexis 2519; April 17, 2000).
Proof future lost earningsBy Wayne O. SmithTort Law, September 2000Plaintiffs' lawyers are often faced with the dilemma of whether they have a sustainable case for future lost earnings.
