Details

Category: Headlines - Current

Guolee Wins Appeal in Illinois Second District - Talking on Cellphone a "Self-Created Distraction"

Congrats to Q&H Chicago Shareholder Terrence Guolee, who recently won an appeal before the Illinois Second District Appellate Court.

In the case, a patron of a Starbucks coffee shop left his table in order to take a call on his cell phone. While pacing along a sidewalk outside the door of the coffee shop, the plaintiff stepped on some mulch and debris, only to have a stick poke through his shoe and impale his foot. Plaintiff testified he did not see the debris until he was injured and that he heard a manager of the location tell another employee that he was supposed to have cleaned up the debris. The debris was believed to have been blown out of planting areas near the sidewalk during a storm the prior night.

Plaintiff sued Starbucks and the owner of the shopping mall. Terrence's client, the owner of the shopping mall, moved for summary judgment arguing that the presence of the mulch and debris was an open and obvious hazard. Defenses were also raised arguing that the lease for the property placed the duty to maintain the sidewalk outside the coffee shop on the tenant, Starbucks.

The trial court entered summary judgment for all defendants. In so doing, the court agreed with the defendants that the presence of the mulch and debris was an open and obvious hazard. The court also found that plaintiff's claim that the he was distracted would not save the case, given that any distraction caused by one talking on a phone call would be a self-created distraction.

Following various post-trial proceedings, plaintiff appealed the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Following briefing, the Illinois Second District Appellate Court ruled in favor of all defendants. In particular, they agreed that the mulch and debris on the sidewalk was an open and obvious hazard that the plaintiff should have noticed and avoided. Moreover, they agreed with the defendants' arguments that any distraction caused by plaintiff's talking on his cellphone was a "self-created distraction" that defendants had no duty to protect the plaintiff from. As such, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment.

The appeal is still within the time period for requests for rehearing or petitions for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. The decision can be accessed at: http://www.state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2015/2ndDistrict/2140663_R23.pdf.

Details

Category: Headlines - Current

Chicago office shareholder Terrence Guolee recently assisted a major financial institution in resolving a pre-suit claim that one of its analysts died as a result of a Cocaine overdose at what was alleged to have been a firm social outing. 

Among other claims, counsel for the surviving family members of the deceased analyst brought forward claims under the Illinois Drug Dealer Liability Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 57 et seq. - a statute with very little in the way of case authority. In short, it was alleged that the deceased analyst was provided drugs by his co-workers and used drugs in order to keep up with the long hours connected to being a young analyst 

Despite an initial demand by the family of $15 million claiming the analyst died as a result of a "drug-fueled workplace" and overbearing workhours, Terrence was able to quickly complete multiple interviews of potential witnesses and posture the claim for a settlement conference, where the case was resolved for less than potential defense fees. Terrence was also able to compel the claimants to agree to confidentialty provisions that will protect Terrence's client from unfavorable press - even though the allegations were strongly denied.

Details

Category: Headlines - Current

Burke and Callicoat Apply Judicial Estoppel and Defeat Federal Court Warehouse/Trucking Claim

Shareholders Thomas P. Burke and Jason Callicoat recently won summary judgment in a federal lawsuit filed against their client, a warehousing company. Plaintiff alleged the company had negligently lost two truckloads of copper cathodes, valued at approximately $282,000. Plaintiff alleged the warehousing company caused the loads to be lost or stolen, rather than releasing them to the appropriate carrier that Plaintiff had designated to pick up the loads.

Tom and Jason moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiff’s alleged facts directly contradicted the facts Plaintiff had alleged in a prior lawsuit pertaining to the same shipments. In the prior lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that the loads were released to the appropriate carrier, and the carrier lost the loads in transit. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the carrier in that prior lawsuit. Plaintiff then continued with its lawsuit against Querrey & Harrow’s client, maintaining the assertion that the client never gave the shipments to the appropriate carrier.

Tom and Jason argued the doctrine of judicial estoppel should be applied. That doctrine prevents a Plaintiff from obtaining a judgment in one lawsuit by proving a certain set of facts, and then turning around and obtaining another judgment in a second lawsuit based on a contrary position. The doctrine prevents fraud on the courts, by barring Plaintiffs from recovering in two different cases based on two different sets of facts that cannot both be true. The court agreed with Querrey & Harrow’s argument and granted summary judgment in favor of the warehousing company, based on the prior judgment Plaintiff obtained by representing it was the carrier that lost the shipments.

Details

Category: Headlines - Current

Guolee and Schwartz Obtain Dismissal of Consolidated Wrongful Death Auto Claims

Congrats to Querrey & Harrow Shareholder Terrence Guolee and Associate Sara Schwartz on obtaining the dismissal of all claims against their client, a marketing company, in a tragic auto accident case that spurred three different consolidated lawsuits.

In the case, the Plaintiff's decedent died following injuries sustained when the car he was a passenger in ran through the light and was hit by another vehicle turning left into the intersection. The decedent was being driven by an employee of another defendant in the cases, that was a subcontractor to Q&H's client marketing company. Plaintiff sought to involve Q&H's client in the litigation based on the subcontract for services with Q&H's client.

However, following examination of the applicable contract materials, Terrence and Sara quickly set out on a defense of the case asserting that the subcontractor was an independent contractor and Q&H's client was not involved with the travel being completed at the time of the accident.

Following meetings with the client, an early motion to dismiss was filed. This motion prompted plaintiff counsel and all other potentially adverse parties in the case to dismiss their claims against Q&H's client - saving the client the expense of what is sure to be extended litigation and withdrawing the client from a liability case with damages very likely to exceed a million dollars.