Chicago Accident and Injury Lawyer Blog

As a trial attorney in Chicago, I am interested in researching the factors that jurors take into consideration in deciding their verdict. A recent Cornell University study, “When Emotionality Trumps Reason,” has found that in criminal cases, unattractive defendants are 22% more likely to be convicted than good-looking ones. Unattractive defendants also get slapped with harsher sentences. I wonder how the results of this study would play out in a civil matter, such as a car accident or a medical malpractice matter. Do "better looking" plaintiffs receive higher verdicts or are unattractive defendants more likely to get hit with a verdict?

The study examines how jurors make decisions rationally, based on facts and logic while others do not use reason. Jurors will often decide on emotions, taking into consideration factors unrelated to the case - looks being one of them.

Before we know it, wintry weather will be arriving in Chicagoland and unfortunately, people will begin to slip and fall on the ice and snow. As a personal injury attorney in Chicago where we get our fair share of ice and snow, my advice to private, public and commercial property owners is to shovel your snow and put down salt to avoid icy conditions! Take precautions to avoid injuries. As a slip and fall attorney, I have seen some nasty injuries resulting from falls, including shattered kneecaps and fractured bones. Please be careful out there!

Unfortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that allows property owners to skirt liability for failing to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow. The "natural accumulation rule" or "Massachusetts rule" (which has been disposed of in Massachusetts) should be done away with in Illinois. In 2010, we are equipped with the supplies necessary to take the reasonable steps necessary to rid our sidewalks, parking lots and steps with dangerous snow and ice. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island stated:

‘We believe that today a landlord, armed with an ample supply of salt, sand, scrapers, shovels and even perhaps a snow blower, can acquit himself quite admirably as he takes to the common passageways to do battle with the fallen snow, the sun-melted snow now turned to ice, or the frozen rain. We fail to see the rationale for a rule which grants a seasonal exemption from liability to a landlord because he has failed to take adequate precautions against the hazards that can arise from the presence of unshoveled snow or unsanded or salt-free ice found in the areas of his responsibility but yet hold him liable on a year round basis for other types of defects attributable to the workings of mother nature in the very same portions of his property.’ Fuller v. Housing Auth. of Providence, 108 R.I. 770, 773, 279 A.2d 438 (1971).”

The injuries resulting from slippery wintry conditions are serious. I strongly agree with the well-written dissent by Justice Freeman in Krywin v. The Chicago Transit Authority. Justice Freeman emphasizes that the "reasonable care standard" does not impose any “special burdens” on property owners. Under the reasonable care standard, it is for the finder of fact to determine“what snow and ice removal efforts are reasonable in light of the expense they impose on the landowner and the probability and seriousness of the foreseeable harm to others.” Papadopoulos v. Target Corporation, 457 Mass. 368, 384 (2010), 930 N.E.2d at 154. The snow removal “reasonably expected of a property owner will depend on the amount of foot traffic to be anticipated on the property, the magnitude of the risk reasonably feared, and the burden and expense of snow and ice removal. Papadopoulos, 457 Mass. at 384, 930 N.E.2d at 154.

People present to hospitals every day in Chicago and around the world with the expectation of receiving quality care and not suffering complications from medical malpractice at the hands of their doctors, nurses and technicians. Sadly, 98,000 people a year die from medical mistakes. A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that 1.5 percent of Medicare patients are harmed as a result of medical errors and suffer a complication that contributes to their death. As part of the new health care law, programs are being implemented to improve quality of care and reduce health care costs. Some projects focus on assisting primary care physicians to coordinate with the physicians who practice more specialized medicine to ensure that a patient does not receive fragmented medical care.

The HHS report analyzed the records of 780 Medicare patients hospitalized in October 2008. The report analyzed both medical mistakes and unavoidable adverse events. In October of 2008, 134,000 Medicare patients suffered at least one adverse event while hospitalized. Of these events, a whopping 44 percent were preventable.

Late Friday, November 12, 2010, a Cook County jury awarded an Oswego woman with soft-tissue injuries $111,000 related to an April 28, 2005 motor vehicle collision. There were no settlement offers prior to the verdict. The defense admitted negligence, but asserted that any damage was degenerative in nature and was not due to the accident.

Jeffrey J. Kroll and Heather A. Begley of the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Kroll represented the plaintiff.

As a Chicago attorney who handles slip and fall cases involving serious injuries, I was pleased with the recent opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court in Alqadhi v. Standard Parking, Inc., et al. No. 1-08-3554. The plaintiff's premises liability complaint alleged she tripped and fell over raised concrete while leaving defendant's parking garage and suffered injury to her knees. Plaintiff contends that defendant failed to mark a 3/4-inch rise in concrete of a wheelchair-accessible ramp near the second-floor to defendant's garage.

Defendants argued that there was no foreseeable risk created by the raised concrete and that the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff testified that the raised concrete created an optical illusion of a flat walking surface because it was a new building and the concrete had not been painted yellow yet. Plaintiff's expert found that the "lack of contract between the surface of the parking lot and the curb ramp... disguised the abrupt change in vertical elevation between the parking level and those surfaces.. and was not obvious."

Defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted on the basis that the concrete's condition was open and obvious. The Plaintiff appealed the court's order and the case has been remanded back the circuit court because the appellate court disagreed with the court's finding that the concrete's condition was open and obvious.

Ultimately, it should be up to the members of the jury to decide whether the parking garage is liable for this plaintiff's injuries. Fortunately, this woman will have her day in court.