Get in Touch

Inaccurate Instructions and Interest on the Verdict: Takeaways from Johnson v. Advocate For the Medical Negligence Professional

In the landmark case of Johnson v. Advocate, critical issues surrounding jury instructions and prejudgment interest were brought to light, reshaping the landscape for medical malpractice defense in Illinois. The court’s decision emphasized the importance of accurately instructing juries on the sole proximate cause defense, a right long recognized in Illinois law. Additionally, the ruling clarified that high-low proposals made during deliberations do not qualify as settlement offers, preserving the potential for significant financial implications post-verdict. This case serves as a vital reminder for defense attorneys to strategically navigate complex legal challenges and protect their clients’ interests.

Circuit Court Revested with Jurisdiction the Date the Appellate Court Issues Mandate—Even if Circuit Court Clerk Fails to File It

An Illinois appellate court recently clarified when jurisdiction returns to the circuit court after an appeal—holding that jurisdiction automatically revests when the appellate mandate is issued, even if the circuit court clerk never files it. This article examines the court’s reasoning, the conflicting appellate authority, and the practical implications for litigants navigating post-appeal proceedings in Illinois, including before the Illinois Appellate Court.

Illinois Appellate Court Rules on Sole Proximate Cause Jury Instruction

On May 7, 2025, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a $20 million medical malpractice verdict against a hospital, holding that while the defendant was entitled to a non-pattern jury instruction on sole proximate cause, the trial court’s failure to give the instruction was harmless. The court further ruled that a proposed high-low agreement did not qualify as a settlement offer under Illinois’ prejudgment interest statute, allowing prejudgment interest to remain available despite the verdict.

Illinois Appellate Court Examines a Duty to Others in an Operating Room

The Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for a surgeon sued by an operating room nurse injured during surgery, holding that no duty was owed to a co-worker under the circumstances. Applying the traditional duty factors, the court found the injury was not foreseeable or likely and that imposing additional duties on surgeons during surgery would unduly burden patient care.

Appellate Court Upholds Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor on Issue of Retained Control

In a recent ruling, the appellate court upheld a summary judgment favoring Abbey Paving Co., Inc., dismissing negligence claims from plaintiff Thomas W. Neisendorf after a trench wall collapsed. The court evaluated Abbey’s control over subcontractor Campton Construction’s work and found no evidence of such control or any notice of unsafe conditions. This decision highlights the complexities of liability in construction projects.

Retention Pond Is Open and Obvious Danger for Which Property Owners Owe No Legal Duty to Unsupervised Child

It’s a parent’s worst nightmare when a child drowns in a pond. In Purevdori v. Mission Hills Condominium T-2 Association, the court examined the duty of care property owners have to unsupervised children. The ruling emphasizes that bodies of water are obvious dangers, shifting responsibility for supervision to parents. Discover the implications of this ruling for property owners and caretakers.

Beyond the Signature: How Context and Timing of Consent Forms Can Impact Apparent Agency Claims

In a pivotal ruling, the Illinois First District Appellate Court examined agency claims in medical malpractice cases, focusing on the timing of consent forms. The case of Brayboy v. Advocate Health & Hosp. Corp. highlights how consent forms can be contested based on signing circumstances. This decision affects emergency room treatment and patient rights, emphasizing meaningful consent and hospital liability. Discover how this case may influence defense strategies in medical malpractice claims.

Appellate Court Upholds Illinois Coal Ash Regulations

Coal ash contains hazardous contaminants that can threaten soil and water, leading Illinois to adopt statewide rules regulating coal ash ponds. On March 13, 2024, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District upheld those rules, finding the Pollution Control Board acted within its authority and reasonably justified the regulations.

Law Enforcement Liability for Failing to Perform Statutory Duties in Domestic Violence Situations

In Illinois, the Domestic Violence Act requires law enforcement to act quickly to protect victims. Recent court cases reveal failures by officers that resulted in tragic outcomes, including a murder following denied support. These rulings underscore the need for accountability and liability for non-compliance. Discover how these cases are altering responses to domestic violence in Illinois.