Case Review: Barrett v. FA Group, LLC, et al.By Jason SchutteOctober 2018An summary of Barrett v. FA Group, LLC, et al., in which the court determined whether a shoe sticking in asphalt and darkness are circumstances sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Case Review: Doe v. CoeBy Albert E. DurkinOctober 2018The appellate court ruled in Jane Doe v. Chad Coe, et al. that strict compliance with Supreme Court Rule 191(a) is mandatory and failure to attach documents relied upon in support of a 191(a) affidavit is fatal.
Case review: Giles v. ParkBy Leslie J. RosenOctober 2018The first district held in Giles v. Park that a decedent’s personal representative must file claims under the Illinois Nursing Home Act and/or Survival Act within two years of the negligent act, even if the decedent was rendered disabled by the injury.
Direct examination of adverse witnesses: Use of leading questions in state and federal courtsBy Zoe Brumfield-Meyers & Brian LaCienMarch 2018Current Illinois law lags behind the federal approach to calling witnesses adversely and allowing leading questions on direct examination. As the federal law has expanded to include witnesses “identified with an adverse party,” including close friends, and former and current employees, Illinois still restricts this practice to as “the officers, directors, managing agents or foreman of any party.”
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoDecember 2018An introduction to the issue by John L. Nisivaco.
Editor’s noteBy John NisivacoNovember 2018An introduction to the issue from the Section on Tort Law's editor, John Nisivaco.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoOctober 2018An introduction to the issue by John L. Nisivaco.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoMarch 2018An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Editor’s noteBy John L. NisivacoFebruary 2018An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Premises liability: Open and obvious claimsBy Brion W. DohertyNovember 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.