Personal Injury

Employer not liable for police officer/security guard's arrest of customer.

Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:23:00 GMT

In a case successfully presented to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana by Bullaro & Carton, P.C. on behalf of Citizens Financial Bank, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens, holding that it could not be liable for the actions of an off-duty police officer employed as a security guard in arresting a bank customer. Crenshaw v. City of East Chicago, Indiana et al., 2008 WL 2557442 (N.D.Ind.). Citizens employed an off-duty police officer to work as its security guard. After a bank customer became disorderly inside the bank, the security guard arrested the customer and placed her in handcuffs. The plaintiff’s husband was also subsequently arrested. The security guard was dressed in full police uniform including his gun holster and vest emblazoned with the word “POLICE”. The plaintiff alleged that following the arrest, while still in the bank lobby, the security guard forced her into a chair by kicking her knee thereby causing injury. Citizens moved for summary judgment arguing that the security guard was acting in his official capacity as a police officer, and not as an employee of Citizens, when he arrested the plaintiff and her husband. Granting summary judgment, the District Court held that the arrest and all efforts made thereafter to effectuate the arrest, including the alleged battery, were performed by the security guard pursuant to his public police powers. The court ruled that Citizens could not be held liable for such police actions over which they had no control.

Snow and ice removal in Illinois:

Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:22:00 GMT

A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision held that a provision of the Snow and Ice Removal Act applies to any “sidewalk” or “walkway” that reaches or touches a residence. Bremer v. Leisure Acres-Phase II Housing Corp., 842 N.E.2d 1151 (2006). The Act states, "[a]ny owner, lessor, occupant or other person in charge of any residential property,... who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from sidewalks abutting the property shall not be liable for any personal injuries allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk resulting from his or her acts or omissions unless the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton." 745 ILCS 75/2 (West 2002). The court in Bremer held that this provision applies not only to public sidewalks that border residential property, but also to any “sidewalk” or “walkway” that reaches or touches a residence.

Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act covers injuries happening in other states:

Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:21:00 GMT

The Illinois Supreme Court recently affirmed that the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission has jurisdiction over injuries occurring outside of Illinois when the contract of hire was made within Illinois. Mahoney v. Industrial Commission.

New Illinois Caselaw Regarding Allocation Of Fault At Trial:

Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:21:00 GMT

In Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 758 (1st Dist., 2006), the Illinois First District Appellate Court was presented with the following question: “Is a defendant who settles with the plaintiff prior to trial still a ‘defendant sued by the plaintiff’ within the meaning of section 2-1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure” such that fault may be allocated to settling defendants at trial? The court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that “all defendants sued by the plaintiff, including those who settled prior to trial, may be included on the jury verdict form so that a fact finder can assign each defendant their degree of relative fault, if any.” The First District came to a different conclusion than the Fifth District in Blake v. Hy Ho Restaurant, Inc., 652 N.E.2d 807 (5th Dist., 1995) and the Seventh Circuit, which relied upon Blake, in Freislinger v. Emro Propane Co., 99 F.3d 1412 (7th Cir., 1996). The First District instead agreed with the Fourth District’s interpretation of 2-1117 in Skaggs v. Senior Services of Central Illinois, Inc., 823 N.E.2d 1021 (4th Dist., 2005). Interestingly, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant would be able to “levy fault to nonparties at trial,” and stated that “[F]ault is to be apportioned among all defendants sued by the plaintiff,” and “[a]ny settlement entered into with any defendant should not serve to alter the remaining defendant(s)' degree of fault.” Ready, 854 N.E.2d at 764.