The newsletter of the ISBA’s Section on Tort Law
Browse articles by year: 2013 (7)
Newsletter articles from 2004
The first article in this edition is written by Marty Dolan and Myco Dang of Dolan & Shannon. The article discusses the proper procedure for naming respondents in discovery pursuant to Section 2-402 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
The first article, written by James P. Ginzkey of Hayes, Hammer, Miles, Cox & Ginzkey, discusses the First District Appellate Court's original opinion in Ozik v. Gramins, as well as the subsequent withdrawal of that opinion and the issuance of another opinion.
The first article in this edition is written by Michael W. Clancy of Clancy Law Offices. Mr. Clancy provides some helpful tips for an attorney when evaluating whether or not to pursue a medical malpractice suit.
The first article is written by John Stalmack of Bollinger Rubery & Garvey.
The first article in this edition is written by Christopher Norem of Parente & Norem. Mr. Norem explores Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer and its effect on the admissibility of evidence of prior injuries regarding the "same part of the body" rule.
Life after Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, a plaintiff’s perspective
Prior to the Illinois Supreme Court's holding in Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, 192 Ill.2d 49, 733 N.E.2d 1275 (2000), there was a significant split among the various state district courts on the so-called "same part of the body rule" (which presumed that a previous injury was automatically relevant simply because it was to the same part of the body) and how that affected the admissibility of evidence of prior injuries to the same part of a plaintiff's body.
Respondents in Discovery—A useful tool
While section 2-402 applies to all civil litigation, this article mainly deals with medical malpractice litigation, and it addresses the issue of respondents in discovery in light of the recent Illinois Appellate Court, First District, ruling in Robinson v. Johnson.
Subsequent remedial measure—An update
Evidence of a subsequent remedial measure is not admissible to prove negligence on the part of any person being charged with negligent conduct.