Member Groups

Tort LawThe newsletter of the ISBA’s Section on Tort Law

Browse articles by year: 2014 (17) 2013 (7) 2012 (19) 2011 (12) 2010 (14) 2009 (12) 2008 (16) 2007 (9) 2006 (15) 2005 (15) 2004 (15) 2003 (19) 2002 (18) 2001 (9) 2000 (21) 1999 (15)

Newsletter articles from 2004

1st District Appellate Court withdraws first opinion in Ozik v. Gramins By James P. Ginzkey June 2004 On October 27, 2003, the First District Appellate Court withdrew its controversial1 opinion in Ozik v. Gramins, 2003 WL 21496411, 2003 Ill.App. LEXIS 846 (1st Dist., 2003).
Acceptance of unsolicited workers’ compensation benefits does not bar common law action By Stephen G. Baime May 2004 The recent case of Wren v. Reddick Community Fire Protection District, 337 Ill. App. 3d 262, 785 N.E.2d 1052, 271 Ill. Dec. 858 (2003), held that the injured plaintiffs could proceed with a third-party claim in court even though they accepted workers' compensation benefits and filed a workers' compensation claim against the defendant.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco November 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.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco June 2004 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.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco May 2004 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.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco April 2004 The first article is written by John Stalmack of Bollinger Rubery & Garvey.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco March 2004 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.
Exploring the bankruptcy law issues a tort law practitioner faces in a Wrongful Death Act case By Mark L. Karno November 2004 The wife of one of your clients walks in the door of your offices in tears.
Life after Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, a plaintiff’s perspective By Christopher M. Norem March 2004 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.
Medical malpractice: Claim intake and evaluation By Michael W. Clancy May 2004 The lure of a big medical malpractice settlement or verdict is undeniable-there are debts to pay, consumables to buy, leisure time to enjoy.
Plaintiff may recover full amount of medical bills despite insurer’s discounts By Robert T. Park April 2004 In mid-January, the Third District Appellate Court handed down its ruling in the case of Arthur v. Catour, 281 Ill.Dec. 243, 803 N.E.2d 647 (3rd Dist. 2004).
Premises owner’s liability for third-party criminal acts in situations involving a voluntary undertaking to protect By Samuel A. Kavathas March 2004 Generally, a landowner does not have a legal duty to protect others from the criminal acts of third parties on its property, unless a "special relationship" exists.
Respondents in Discovery—A useful tool By Martin A. Dolan and Myco T. Dang November 2004 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 By John M. Stalmack April 2004 Evidence of a subsequent remedial measure is not admissible to prove negligence on the part of any person being charged with negligent conduct.
Using PowerPoint to prove your point at trial By Patrick T. Barone June 2004 Perhaps the most challenging task for a trial lawyer is taking a complicated concept or group of concepts, and breaking them down into their fundamental elements.