Cases
Significant Cases: Douglas v. Martinez v. Finn: Successful jury trial. Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident
sued the driver of the vehicle in which he was riding
the driver of the second vehicle involved in the accident. Plaintiff dismissed the driver of the second vehicle, our client, but he was subsequently added to the case as a third party defendant. Brad represented our client in a three day jury trial. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty for our client, finding that he was not negligent
had not caused the accident.
Schoonover v. Orr, et al.: Double fatality trucking accident in west central Illinois with admitted liability. The unique issue presented in this case was that one of the decedent's families sought punitive damages from the truck driver
trucking company via an assignment of the property damage claim held by the owner of the tractor on which the decedent was riding. The validity of the assignment of the property damage claim (
the possible punitive damages claim associated with it)
the factual basis for punitive damages was vigorously challenged. Brad was involved throughout the case, evaluating the legal
factual issues involved
drafting substantial motions
responses. Brad deposed Plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert on the issues related to the punitive damages claims. One of the main issues addressed was the expert's opinions on visual angle analysis,
the difficulties posed to the driver by approaching a vehicle moving much slower than the one he was operating. The case was settled favorably just prior to the issue of Plaintiff's ability to plead punitive damages pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-604.1 ultimately being determined.
Farber v. McMeen, et al.: Trucking accident in western Illinois involving an Illinois truck driver
Illinois trucking company. Plaintiffs were Pennsylvania residents
sued in Pennsylvania federal court on that basis. With Pennsylvania counsel, we challenged personal jurisdiction
venue, filing a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction
improper venue. The Motion asked in the alternative for the venue to be transferred on forum non conveniens grounds. This issue involved substantial briefing
discovery. Ultimately, the Eastern District for Pennsylvania granted the Motion, determining that there was no personal jurisdiction over the company or driver. The case was transferred to the proper venue, the Central District of Illinois, where a favorable settlement was reached after the depositions of Plaintiffs, the truck driver,
trucking company representatives.
Morris v. Merrill
Martin Co. Excavating: Trucking accident involving deaths of a young child, the child's father
the child's gr
mother. The child's mother survived, but suffered various injuries. We were retained by the insurance carrier to help navigate through potential bad faith issues. Brad was involved with the complex pre-suit investigation, exploring numerous issues related to the potential damages. The case was resolved favorably at mediation within our case evaluation.
Youman v. Karls: Plaintiff sued a flooring contractor almost four years after an accident in which he had tripped over flooring materials in a hospital hallway. The case was dismissed with prejudice following argument on a 2-619 Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss argued that the two year personal injury statute of limitations applied rather than the four year construction statute of limitations. The key issue in the case was whether the flooring project constituted an improvement to real property, such that the construction statute of limitations applied.
Daft v. Ferguson, et al.: Three week jury trial in a trucking case in west central Illinois. The case involved an accident between two tractor-trailers
a resulting rollover of the vehicle in which Plaintiffs were riding. Brad was actively involved at trial, drafting motions
responses regarding evidentiary issues, preparing witnesses,
questioning witnesses at trial.
J.P. v. J.C., et al.: Plaintiff was injured at a steel mill when he was electrically shocked while spraying weeds. The case settled just prior to trial. Brad was actively involved in the preparation of the case for trial, including preparation of pre-trial motions, identification
selection of experts, preparation of experts for depositions,
defending experts at depositions.
J.D. v. O.T., et al.: Plaintiff filed suit against two entities that operated a theater, alleging that the entities negligently hired
supervised an employee. The case was dismissed with prejudice following arguments on a 2-619 Motion to Dismiss, in which Brad argued that the entities were local public entities entitled to immunity under the Tort Immunity Act.
