Tort Trends

The newsletter of the ISBA’s Section on Tort Law

ISBA Members, please login to join this section

2018 Articles

Appellate court confirms importance of Dead Man’s Act in surviving litigation By Jason G. Schutte November 2018 The Dead Man’s Act can be a very effective tool in defending personal injury claims. In Spencer v. Strenger Wayne, it was used to wholly defeat a negligence case.
Bye bye love—No more heart balm (aka: heartburn) actions By Hon. Martin J. Mengarelli February 2018 Causes of action for being left at the altar or for your spouse running off with someone else are gone. So what's a jilted person to do?
Carlson v. Jerousek: Second District finds right to privacy outweighs needs of civil discovery By Laura Castagna & Amelia S. Buragas February 2018 Carlson provides a good reminder to practitioners that while discovery reaches information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information, there are indeed limits imposed by a party’s right to privacy.
Case Review: Barrett v. FA Group, LLC, et al. By Jason Schutte October 2018 An 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. Coe By Albert E. Durkin October 2018 The 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. Park By Leslie J. Rosen October 2018 The 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 courts By Zoe Brumfield-Meyers & Brian LaCien March 2018 Current 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 note By John L. Nisivaco December 2018 An introduction to the issue by John L. Nisivaco.
Editor’s note By John Nisivaco November 2018 An introduction to the issue from the Section on Tort Law's editor, John Nisivaco.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco October 2018 An introduction to the issue by John L. Nisivaco.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco March 2018 An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Editor’s note By John L. Nisivaco February 2018 An introduction to the issue from Editor John Nisivaco.
Five courtroom tips for new lawyers By Jameika Mangum March 2018 Author Jameika Williams Mangum provides five tips to help you navigate the courtroom.
How to navigate conflicts between demands for confidentiality of discovery and settlement and indemnification: Your duty to your client and the law By Larry E. Coben December 2018 While we are often very cognizant of our legal responsibilities and the substantive arguments for and against confidentiality in discovery and settlement agreements, the ethical ramifications are lesser known.
Look closer at that healthcare lien for unpaid bills when a client has health insurance By Nicholas T. Motherway December 2018 Although receiving a healthcare lien for a client's treatment can become routine, it is important to make sure to take a look at whether the underlying bill on the lien was paid. 
Premises liability: Open and obvious claims By Brion W. Doherty November 2018 In 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.