Recent Injury & Tort Law Decisions

In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit against their deceased son's doctor and his clinic, district court's dismissal and rejection of their Rule 59(e) motion and a motion for leave to file a new set of supplemental reports is reversed and remanded as the district court erred in concluding that whatever flaws existed in the expert reports that the plaintiffs submitted went to their admissibility, as opposed to their weight.   

Read Walsh v. Chez, No. 08-1006

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Argued December 12, 2008
Decided October 21, 2009

Judges

Before:  Cudahy, Flaum, and Wood, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Wood, Circuit Judge

In Mercantile National Bank of Indiana's claim under Indiana's Crime Victims' Compensation Act (CVCA) against its debtor, which allows a person who suffers pecuniary loss as a result of certain property crimes to seek treble damages and attorneys' fees, district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the CVCA claim is reversed as Mercantile properly commenced its CVCA claim within the statute of limitations where it was not filed to enforce the previous judgment but rather to seek damages based on a new cause of action.   

Read Rose v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank of Indiana, No. 08-3431

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Argued February 19, 2009
Decided October 7, 2009

Judges

Before:  Flaum and Williams, Circuit Judges, and Kapala, District Judge

Opinion by Williams, Circuit Judge

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case against a county including the county sheriff, county jail employees, and a psychiatrist provided by the county jail, arising from the death of plaintiff's brother while detained in jail, district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants is affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part where: 1) district court correctly concluded that the County's policy of requiring a corrections officer to be present during psychiatric examinations at the jail did not violate plaintiff's brother's constitutional right to adequate mental health treatment; 2) summary judgment as to the medical malpractice claim against the treating psychiatrist is reversed and remanded where plaintiff's complaint and brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment make clear that she also alleges malpractice by the doctor in discontinuing her brother's medication; and 3) because only state law claims now remain in the case, the district court should determine whether the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.   

Read Hunter v. Amin, No. 08-3719

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Argued May 5, 2009
Decided October 1, 2009

Judges

Before Ripple and Sykes, Circuit Judges, and Lawrence, District Judge

Opinion by Lawrence, District Judge

In plaintiff's tort case against defendant-general contractors arising from an injury sustained while working on renovation of Soldier Field, district court's failure to give a joint control instruction to the jury was a harmless error and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a red herring in this case as the question is not whether and in what sense defendant controlled the scaffold, but whether it failed to make a timely inspection of it.  Here, this was a reasonable delegation of responsibility to the subcontractor, and so the general contractor did not breach its duty of care by not checking all the scaffolds when they were first assembled. 

Read Aguirre v. Turner Constr. Co., No. 08-3999

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Argued June 2, 2009
Decided September 30, 2009

Judges

Before Posner, Kanne, and Ripple, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Posner, Circuit Judge

In plaintiff's case against several defendants arising from a custody case in which the Illinois state court found that she suffered from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, district court's dismissal of her suit is affirmed where: 1) guardians ad litem and court-appointed experts, including psychiatrists, are absolutely immune from liability for damages when they act at the court's direction; 2) no factual allegations tie the defendants, who are private individuals, to a conspiracy with a state actor; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion.    

Read Cooney v. Rossiter, No. 08-3675

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Argued August 27, 2009
Decided September 30, 2009

Judges

Before Bauer, Posner, and Wood  Circuit Judges

Opinion by Posner, Circuit Judge

In a personal injury action, district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant-business owner, as plaintiff has not presented any evidence that the fall was a result of an unnatural accumulation of ice or an aggravation of an existing condition; 2) district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant-property owner, as mere presence of snow and ice does not demonstrate negligence; and 3) there is no evidence that the ice was anything other than a natural accumulation, and as the duty to maintain a safe ingress and egress does not include the removal of natural accumulations of ice, there is no viable claim here. 

Read Ciciora v. CCAA, Inc., No. 08-1099

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued February 13, 2009
Decided September 4, 2009

Judges

Before Kanne, Rovner, and Evans, Circuit Judges 

In a civil rights action against the city of Peoria under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 arising from an arrest on mistaken identity, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's argument depends on incorporating the state and local protections of parking violators from arrest into the Fourth Amendment, and he is not within those protections; 2) plaintiff's due process claim fails under his argument that the city deprived him of liberty by arresting him without having notified him that a failure to pay parking tickets might lead to an arrest, but since he didn't fail to pay his parking tickets, the notice could not have helped him; and 3) even if the prosecutor violated plaintiff's rights in filing the motion that led to his arrest, she has absolute immunity from liability to pay damages for consequences while performing prosecutorial duties.  

Read Thomas v. City of Peoria, No. 08-2918

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
Argued April 13, 2009
Decided September 2, 2009

Judges

Before Cudhay, Posner, and Tinder, Circuit Judges 

In plaintiff's action against retail giant, Target, alleging that it had violated sections 1642 and 1637 of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Target and denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification of TILA claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in denying plaintiff's motion for class certification of her section 1642 claim as it is readily apparent that her claim is very different from the claims of the majority of the class members; and 2) district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for class certification with respect to the section 1637 claims as plaintiff was ineligible to serve as a class representative because she did not have a claim under either section 1637(a) or section 1637(b).     

Read Muro v. Target Corp., No. 08-1256

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued September 12, 2009
Decided August 31, 2009

Judges

Before Ripple, Rovner and Evans, Circuit Judges 

Opinion by Ripple, Circuit Judge.

District court's dismissal of plaintiff's lawsuit against defendant for injuries sustained in a collision is reversed and remanded as neither the injunction by the district court, nor the law, requires plaintiff to dismiss her state suit, as plaintiff can maintain her preexisting state claim so long as she stays the suit during the pendency of the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act proceedings.  The district court abused its discretion in ordering the plaintiff to dismiss her state suit as a sanction.     

Read Am. River Transp. Co. v. Ryan, No. 08-1545

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued February 11,  2009
Decided August 27, 2009

Judges

Before Bauer, Ripple and Wood, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by Wood, Circuit Judge.

In a medical malpractice action, denial of plaintiffs' motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs' actions were voluntary and their counsel's actions did not amount to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect in order to obtain relief.       

Read Eskridge v. Cook County, No. 08-2980

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Argued May 28, 2009
Decided August 17, 2009

Judges

Before EVANS and WILLIAMS and TINDER, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by TINDER, Circuit Judge.