Justia Lawyer Rating for Robert D. Kreisman

by

In September 2002, John Defries, an ironworker, was employed by II in One Contractors, Inc. and was working at its Wacker Drive reconstruction project in Chicago. Walsh Construction was the general contractor for the project and was named the defendant in this case.

Defries alleged that he slipped and fell on wet rebar that was being set near the intersection of Wacker and Franklin streets.  Because the rebar had been sprayed by Walsh employees who cleaned the area while he was on break, it was alleged that the area where Defries fell was slippery.

Defries, 50, claimed that he sustained a torn rotator cuff along with a meniscus and ACL tears in his knee. Surgery was required for each injury. Defries claimed medical bills of $121,000 and more than a million dollars for lost time from his job.

Continue reading

by

Clanton Pitchford, a truck driver, was in Tucson, Ariz., in 2006 and spent a night in his semi-trailer truck parked at a truck stop. The accident that caused this lawsuit was the collision with the rear end of Pitchford’s truck and a Knight Transportation truck traveling at about 5 mph.

Pitchford, 59, was sleeping in a raised bed behind the driver seat of his tractor when the collision took place.  He was tossed around, but did not fall out of the bed.  The accident caused Pitchford low back pain, which he did not have before this incident.

Pitchford went to a local emergency room five hours later and was diagnosed with a lumbar strain.

Continue reading

by

Lisa Learmonth filed suit against Sears in a case that was litigated in the federal court in the Southern District of Mississippi.  Learmonth was injured in 2005 in a car accident with a Sears employee.  She was seriously injured and filed suit against Sears for her damages.  A jury in the district court found Sears liable and entered a verdict in the amount of $4 million in compensatory damages, including $2.2 million in non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

The verdict was appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that Mississippi’s caps law on non-economic damages held firm and thus, the verdict of the jury was reduced to conform to that Mississippi law. The Mississippi law caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases at $500,000, and in all other civil actions the cap is set at $1 million. The Mississippi law was found by the federal court of appeals to be constitutional.

The lawyers for Sears applauded the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision, saying that caps are good for business in states like Mississippi, which are trying to attract manufacturers and other large corporations.

Continue reading

by

In June 2009, two trucks on westbound Interstate 80 crashed near or on the right shoulder of the highway. The driver of a second tractor trailer for Jefferson Trucking Co., also on westbound 80, crashed into the rear end of the stopped truck operated by Randolph Ferguson, who was driving for Cresco Lines. The force of the two trucks moved the lead truck 1,200 to 1,500 feet farther down the highway, leaving debris and motor fluids on the roadway.

The plaintiff, Patty Lunn, who was also driving westbound on Interstate 80, came upon the accident scene. The Lunn vehicle skidded on the oily residue left by the trucks, her car became airborne and rolled over three times striking the top of the concrete overpass and median crash barrels before finally coming to rest on the median strip.

Plaintiff Janet Daft, Lunn’s passenger, sustained a collapsed lung and fractured vertebrae to her spine at C-2 and C-3, requiring cervical fusion. Daft already had osteoporosis, but will require future medical treatment as the fusion loosens due to the weakening of her bones. Both Lunn and Daft are school teachers.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a decision by a Cook County Circuit Court judge regarding the plaintiff’s failure to offer evidence to satisfy an element of a cause of action. In that respect, the trial judge entered summary judgment, which has now been affirmed by the higher court.

In November 2008, John Lohmeier was with a friend at a doctor’s appointment on the 11th floor of a Chicago office building.  While there, Lohmeier requested and obtained a key to gain access to the men’s bathroom. The bathroom was located in a common area at the end of the hallway. The restroom had a step up near the doorway.

When Lohmeier opened the door and took a step, he caught his foot on the step.  He fell onto the bathroom floor, sustaining injuries to his knee, shoulder and mouth. A lawsuit was filed because of his injuries. At Lohmeier’s deposition, he testified that he had not seen a sign on the wall across from the door warning incoming patrons of the step. That sign was the only warning sign in the bathroom.

Continue reading

by

In 1991, the nation’s highways limited the weight of trucks at 80,000 pounds.  That has been the law ever since.  But there is now an effort under way by the trucking industry to increase that weight limit for trucks to 97,000 pounds.  The additional weight limit may cause a safety risk for other motorists on America’s highway.

With heavier trucks, not only are other drivers of motor vehicles at greater risk of injury or death, but the heavy trucks will cause more damage to the highway infrastructure. Safety advocates oppose this proposal.

With additional weight, trucks would be harder to stop in emergency situations. The fatal crash rate for heavier trucks is significantly higher than a passenger vehicle crash rate.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a decision by a Cook County probate judge  regarding the admission of a will.  Jozef Opiela died in January 1975.  He purportedly left a will dated March 1972, as well as a codicil to the will that was dated August 1972. Under the terms of the will, Opiela left all of his property to his son, Edward. The codicil made it clear that Opiela’s other heirs were disinherited.  Edward Opiela died in June 2003 and was survived by his son, Richard.  Richard petitioned the court to admit the will and codicil to probate in an action brought in April 2007.

At the trial level, the probate judge held an evidentiary hearing concerning the will.  The sole witness to testify was Richard McQueen, whose mother was a friend of Richard Opiela’s mother and who had known the decedent.  At the hearing, McQueen testified that on the day the will was executed, he gave Jozef a ride to an attorney’s office where Jozef told him he had “some papers” to take care of.  At the time, McQueen was 20 years old and believed Jozef to have been about 70.  McQueen drove Jozef to the office and entered with him.

At the attorney’s office, Eugenie Wnorowski and her colleague, both of whom are dead, were present.

Continue reading

by

In a record setting jury verdict, $4.16 million, Joshua Jaeger, age 26, was severely injured when he fell 16 feet from a forklift and personnel platform.  Mr. Jaeger was a garage door serviceman who went to the Public Works garage for the City of Elmhurst to give an estimate for repairing a broken garage door spring.

An employee of the City of Elmhurst used a forklift and personnel platform to lift Mr. Jaeger 16 feet into the air to take a look at the spring. After Jaeger reached the proper height, he stepped from one side of the platform to the other when he fell to the concrete floor.  He fractured his right femur, which required open reduction internal fixation surgery.  He also suffered soft tissue injuries to his back.

Mr. Jaeger claimed at trial that he was no longer working as a garage door serviceman because of his injuries.  He claimed past and future lost earning capacity in that job totaling $2,480,794.

Continue reading

by

Christopher Sojka was working as a carpenter on Chicago’s Trump Tower as it was under construction in 2008. While standing on the upper floors of the construction project, Sojka attempted to fix a steel cable when the wind knocked him back and a piece of metal struck him in the eye causing serious injuries. Although Sojka was wearing safety glasses, they did not fit his face correctly. A small gap was left at the top of his eyes, allowing the debris to penetrate.

Sojka brought a lawsuit against Bovis Lend Lease in the Circuit Court of Cook County for recovery of his injuries. The case was removed to the federal district court in Chicago because the parties had complete diversity of citizenship in that Sojka was domiciled in Illinois and Bovis was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in New York. The amount in controversy to make the jurisdictional level exceeded $75,000.

The complaint that Sojka filed contained one count for construction negligence, a cause of action recognized in Illinois law. It was also alleged in the complaint that Bovis had a duty to provide a safe workplace; Sojka listed seven theories about how Bovis had violated that duty. One of the first theories was that Bovis knew or should have known that the weather conditions at the site were unsafe at the time of Sojka’s injury.

Continue reading

by

The lawsuit brought by Patricia Emrickson against Fernando Morfin was dismissed with prejudice because Ms. Emrickson’s attorney relied on an online search service that had inaccurate information about the current address for the defendant, Mr. Morfin. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b), a suing plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable diligence in serving a defendant with the complaint.

In this case, the lawsuit was filed by Ms. Emrickson just a short time before the two-year statute of limitations had run out. Although the lawsuit was filed in a timely fashion, Mr. Morfin was not served immediately with the complaint, which alleged that Ms. Emrickson was injured in a car accident. It took 13 months before Mr. Morfin was finally served with a summons.

According to the Illinois Appellate Court, Ms. Emrickson chose not to use reasonable diligence in having Mr. Morfin served before the statute of limitations expired, opening the way for Mr. Morfin to dismiss the case with prejudice under Rule 103(b).

Continue reading