Chicago Personal Injury Law Blog

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) experienced another derailment, this time on the Green Line. New reports indicate that several passengers were injured and had to be taken to local hospitals.

Sadly, derailments of CTA trains are nothing new, as there was another derailment in 2006. That one involved the CTA Blue Line. One difference between the derailment from today and the 2006 CTA derailment was that the earlier one was caused by poor maintenance of the track; this derailment of the CTA Green Line train appears to be due to operator error.

The CTA is in the business of transporting passengers for hire, so they are regarded in the law as a common carrier. This requires that they exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of their passengers.

Because the CTA is regarded as a common carrier, it is unlikely that the CTA will seriously contest liability, if at all. Nonetheless, anyone considering pursuing a personal injury case against the CTA would do well to hire an attorney. The CTA is unique in that persons filing a claim against the CTA must comply with a special statutory CTA notice of claim, and failure to comply with the requirements can result in the dismissal of a meritorious case.

Labels: Accidents on CTA

A 68-year old man died on May 1 while undergoing dialysis at a Jacksonville, Illinois dialysis clinic. The man's death, caused by excessive blood loss during dialysis when a tube loosened during the treatment, prompted an investigation by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

That investigation resulted in a finding of deficiencies against the clinic with regard to the health and safety of its patients. However, the IDPH would not comment on the reasons for the citation. A spokesman for the clinic was able to tell the newspaper that the most recent inspection by IDPH showed no deficiencies and that the company was committed to quality care and patient safety.

It would seem to me that the patient's family has a basis for a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the center. The center had an obligation to make sure that the equipment was properly maintained and was properly set up for the treatment of the patient. Additionally, the center was responsible for monitoring the patient's condition while treatment was underway.

Setting aside the legal issues of liability, there are also issues that should be considered concerning the Illinois Department of Public Health as a guardian of public safety. If the center fell so far short in the quality of care that a patient died as a result, shouldn't other patients of that center be advised of what had happened so they can make informed decisions about where they get their care? Don't patients at other dialysis centers deserve to know what went wrong so they can look for similar problems at their own clinics?

Instead of valuable information from IDPH about what went wrong, the public instead gets assurances from the center that a) the last inspection was deficiency-free (i.e., they either junked or repaired the broken equipment and fired or retrained the employees) and b) they are committed to quality care and patient safety. That is called spin, and it is barely acceptable coming from politicians and is completely unacceptable when it comes to matters of public health and safety. Unfortunately, due to IDPH's failure to disclose the nature of the deficiencies, that is what the public is left with.

Labels: medical malpractice, wrongful death

Today's lead article in the Chicago Sun Times was a feature on the most dangerous intersections in the Chicago area. The top ten most dangerous intersections, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation were:

• in Carpentersville: Huntley Road and Randall Road, 101 crashes;
• in Oak Brook Terrace: Route 83 and 22nd Street, 91 crashes;
• in Chicago: 79th Street and Stony Island, 88 crashes;
• in Gurnee: Hunt Club Road and Route 132, 85 crashes;
• in Gurnee: Rollins Road and Route 132, 82 crashes;
• in Alsip: Ciecro Avenue and 127th Street, 80 crashes;
• in Chicago: Clark Street and LaSalle Street, 69 crashes;
• in Crystal Lake: Randall Road and McHenry Avenue, 67 crashes;
• in Downers Grove: Butterfield Road and Finley Road, 67 crashes; and
• in Romeoville: Weber Road at the I-55 southbound exit ramps, 67 crashes.

There are a number of common elements which contribute to these intersections having so many car crashes, including:

• High traffic volume
• Unusual configurations, such as intersections which do not cross at right angles or are offset;
• Multiple streets coming together and creating a 6-way intersection instead of a conventional 4-way intersection
• Presence of railway viaducts or expressway overpasses;
• Presence of construction or roadwork;
• Heavy pedestrian traffic; and
• Wide, multiple lane intersections.

IDOT and local governmental units are aware of which intersections are the problems in terms of having a high number of accidents, and trying to mitigate problems through re-designs of the intersection or changing the timing of the lights. However, the most important accident prevention measure is in the hands of the driver: paying close attention to what is going on around them and avoiding unnecessary risks.

Labels: Car crashes

The Chicago Tribune carried an article today about a large number of suburban school districts that have received waivers which allow them to limit the amount of behind-the-wheel training time they receive in their driver's education classes. Instead of driving the streets with a driver's ed teacher, students are getting their behind the wheel training by using simulators. With the waivers in place, some students may receive as little as an hour and 40 minutes of driving time behind the wheel with a driving instructor before they can apply to receive their driver's licenses. Some of the people from the districts who were interviewed for the article pointed out that the districts save significant money by using the simulators.

Permitting teenagers to apply for licenses after such a limited period of training is a recipe for disaster. In many of the districts which received the waivers, there are many roads with higher speed limits (40 mph or higher). Car crashes at that speed often result in serious injuries or death. It will only be a matter of time before there is a serious accident involving a teen driver who did not get enough on-the-road training time during drivers ed.

Only then will people start to wonder if the cost savings were worth it. The answer in advance: absolutely not.

Labels: Car crashes

Let's say that you are driving down the road and a dog runs out its yard, through a couple of parked cars, and right into your path. The natural reaction -- and as a dog owner, the one that I hope you would have if my dog ran out in the road -- is to slam on the brakes and hope that you don't run the dog over. It is the natural, human thing to do. Let's also say that after you slam on the brakes, you get hit from behind by the guy behind you who could not stop fast enough after you slam on the brakes. You end up with a some neck and back pain, but the guy behind you ends up leaving in an ambulance. Thankfully, the dog runs back into its yard unharmed.

The question is, who has responsibility for the injuries from this car crash?

The answer is actually somewhat surprising. The party that bears the most responsibility is the owner of the dog. Illinois has a statute called the Domestic Animals Running at Large Act which imposes liability upon the owner of animals that cause injury after getting loose from their enclosures. The party that bears the second most degree of culpability is the driver who stops short for the dog. The law actually requires the driver to keep going and hit the dog if stopping short would create a hazard for other drivers on the road. As far as I know, that is the law in every state except Texas. In Texas, you have stop your car to avoid hitting a cow (which is probably a good thing anyway), but not for other animals, including wayward dogs. The driver who has the least responsibility is the driver of the last car who rear-ended the car that stops for the dog. This seems completely backwards, especially since there is a statute which requires drivers to maintain adequate stopping distance from other motorists.

Surprised by the answer?

Labels: Car crashes