$284,000 for Workers Compensation Claim

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Work Injuries

workers-compensation

Our office recovered $284,000.00 for a 51 year old employee injured at work when the chair she was sitting in collapsed, causing injuries to the lower back.

The employee was never able to return to work and continued to receive, in addition to the above settlement, weekly disability benefits for years after the incident.  It was only after the settlement of the claim did the weekly benefits end.

The employer disputed the nature and extent of the injury, the necessity of the medical treatment, the duration of the injury and the pre-existing conditions that may have contributed to the disability.

In this particular case, the employee sustained an annular tear at L5-S1 with bi-lateral lower extremity radiculopathy.    Treatment included multiple epidurals at various levels, including L5-S1, L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and again at L5-S1.  This was followed by a two level posterior lumbar fusion at L4-L5 and L5-S1, laminectomy, partial facetectomy, with posterior segmental instrumentation with local graft and allograft.  Complications from the surgery resulted in yet additional surgery to drain a lumbar wound infection.  Finally, a laminectomy and discectomy at L5-S1 on the left was performed.  In addition, treatment included numerous MRI’s, C.T. scans, therapy, and examinations.  The employee was eventually diagnosed with failed back syndrome.

The employee was off work and received medical treatment for over nine years.  Throughout this time, the employee continued to receive her weekly workers compensation disability benefits.  However,  the employer contested and disputed various elements of the claim, including various aspects of the injury, the treatment, the disability, and of course the value of the claim.

In long-term cases like this, failure to obtain an attorney would certainly put the employee at a disadvantage to the employer.  At almost every stage of the medical treatment, the employer was disputing the necessity of the treatment, the diagnosis, the ability to work, the significance of pre-existing back injuries, etc.  And, because the employee was a low salaried cafeteria employee, the value of her workers compensation benefits and claim was limited.  Workers compensation benefits are based upon the amount of the employee’s salary.  So, a low income employee with the identical injury as a higher income employee will receive less compensation for her injuries than the higher income employee.

If you have been injured at work, and you have sustained serious injuries, including surgery,  you have the right to a large compensatory claim.  Our office has recovered many large awards for workers with serious injuries that required surgery.  If you believe you have sustained a serious injury, call the Law Firm of Charles J. Gale, P.C.

 

$105,000 For Woman Who Slipped And Fell At A Restaurant

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Premises Liability, Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls, Uncategorized

 

wet-floor-sign-web

 

Our office obtained $105,000 for woman who slipped and fell at a restaurant.

A 61 year old woman slipped and fell at a restaurant as the result of debris left on the floor.

The restaurant was an all you can eat buffet which was busy during the holiday season.  Typically at these buffet type restaurants, the patron serves herself and the busboy clears the table of the finished dishes.  To do this, many times a rolling dish cart is used to stack the used dishes, and sometimes the dish cart is over stacked and there is some leakage of food or drink onto the floor.  And that is exactly what happened.  A dish cart used to store the used dishes was leaking liquid and food onto the floor.  When our client walked past the dish cart, she slipped and fell on the wet floor.  After the fall, the insurance carrier denied the claim, stating that the dish cart was not over-stacked and leaking or that the floor wet.  Suit was filed against the restaurant.

 

The general rule is that the owner of the restaurant has a duty to exercise “reasonable care” to see that the premises are safe for their use, namely, walking.  This duty includes the responsibility to discover defects and dangerous conditions on the property.  This duty also includes the obligation to correct the defect or to give sufficient warning of the defect.  Once the restaurant shows that it in fact did exercise “reasonable care” such as timely and repeated monitoring of the floor, the burden of proof then shifts to the patron.   To be successful in her claim, the patron must now prove that the restaurant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition, in this case, the wet and slippery floor.  Trying to prove that the restaurant knew, or should have known, of the wet and slippery fall can be very difficult, especially when they always deny any knowledge of any spills.

 

Once you are successful in proving that the restaurant knew or should have known of the wet and slippery floor, the insurance company will almost certainly try to put the blame on you for falling. That is, they will argue that you were not looking where you were going and that the wet floor was “open and obvious.”  If you had been looking where you were going, you would have seen the wet floor. Or, they will argue that you in fact did see where you were going and saw the wet floor but choose to ignore the risk.  Since you saw the wet floor prior to your fall, it is your fault. Either way, the insurance company will try to blame you for your injury.

 

If you slip and fall while walking on a wet floor at a restaurant, there are certain things you should do.  First, get the names and addresses of all witnesses to the incident. The property owner or its employees cannot be counted on to be your witness.  Second, give notice of the incident and your injury to the restaurant before you leave the grounds. Make sure a written report of the incident is made. It is crucial that the written report identifies exactly what your injury. Obtain a copy of that report.  Third, you will need to seek immediate medical treatment for your injuries from the incident. With the help of your doctor you should identify all affected areas of your body, regardless of how minor they may seem at the time. Many injuries and side effects don’t manifest themselves fully until days or weeks later and they may be more debilitating than you first assumed.  Fourth, get a camera and take pictures of the scene, focusing on what caused your injury. This of course may not be possible in every instance.  Finally, call an attorney immediately.

 

If you need help, call LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. GALE, PC. We have the capabilities and know-how to prosecute your claim. Don’t hesitate to call us today. There is no fee unless and until we successfully reach a settlement and there is a recovery. Our consultations are also free and are only a short phone call away. Let us help you; all you have to do is dial (312) 372-0300 now!

 

 

 

$47,500 For Woman Injured Walking On Uneven Grounds At The Cemetery

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Cemetery, Premises Liability, Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls, Uncategorized

Cemetery-2-web

 

Our office recovered $47,500 for a woman injured walking on uneven grounds at the cemetery.

 

Our client, a 50 year old woman injured walking on uneven grounds at the cemetery visiting her loved one, stepped into a hole at the cemetery and injured her right foot.  The general rule is the owner of cemetery has a duty to exercise reasonable care to see that the premises are safe for their use, namely, walking.  This duty includes the responsibility to discover defects and dangerous conditions on the property.  This duty also includes the obligation to correct the defects or to give sufficient warning of the defects.

 

There are however exceptions to the responsibility of the cemetery owner to correct defects, such as holes in the ground.  Specifically, the cemetery does not have to warn of dangers that are “open and obvious.”  This means that if while walking on uneven grounds at the cemetery the hole in the ground was clearly visible, (i.e. “open and obvious”), then the cemetery will argue that it was not responsible for the resulting injury.

 

As with all legal doctrines, there are exceptions to the general rule and then exceptions to the exceptions.  And so, there is an exception to the rule of no liability for “open and obvious” conditions.  Specifically, the cemetery will still be held liable for injuries sustained while walking on uneven grounds at the cemetery even though the hole was open and obvious if it was foreseeable that the visitor’s attention would be distracted and that the visitor would not discover the dangerous condition.  Naturally, reasonable people will disagree as to what is “open and obvious” as well as to whether a reasonable person would be “distracted” and fail to appreciate the danger.

 

If you are injured while walking on uneven grounds at the cemetery in the cemetery, the insurance company will almost certainly try to put the blame on you. That is, they will argue that you were not looking where you were going and that the defect was “open and obvious.”  If you had been looking where you were going, you would have seen the defect. Or, they will argue that you in fact did see where you were going and saw the defect but choose to ignore the risk.  Since you saw the defect prior to your injury, it is your fault. Either way, the insurance company will try to blame you for your injury.

 

If you are injured while walking on uneven grounds at the cemetery, there are certain things you should do.  First, get the names and addresses of all witnesses to the incident. The property owner or its employees cannot be counted on to be your witness.  Second, give notice of the incident and your injury to the cemetery before you leave the grounds. Make sure a written report of the incident is made. It is crucial that the written report identifies exactly what your injury. Obtain a copy of that report.  Third, you will need to seek immediate medical treatment for your injuries from the incident. With the help of your doctor you should identify all affected areas of your body, regardless of how minor they may seem at the time. Many injuries and side effects don’t manifest themselves fully until days or weeks later and they may be more debilitating than you first assumed.  Fourth, get a camera and take pictures of the scene, focusing on what caused your injury. This of course may not be possible in every instance.  Finally, call an attorney immediately.

 

If you need help, call LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. GALE, PC. We have the capabilities and know-how to prosecute your claim. Don’t hesitate to call us today. There is no fee unless and until we successfully reach a settlement and there is a recovery. Our consultations are also free and are only a short phone call away. Let us help you; all you have to do is dial (312) 372-0300 now!

 

$155,000.00 For Decubitus Ulcers Of Nursing Home Resident

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Decubitus ulcers, Nursing Home Negligence

decubitus-ulcers-ankle-webdecubitus-ulcers-foot-webdecubitus-ulcers-buttocks-web

Our office successfully recovered $155,000 for decubitus ulcers of nursing home resident.

Decubitus ulcers, or bedsores, result from prolonged pressure that cuts off the blood supply to the skin, causing the skin and other tissue to die. The damage may occur in as little time as 12 hours of pressure, but it might not be noticed until days later when the skin begins to break down. The skin is especially likely to develop pressure sores if it is exposed to rubbing (friction) and moving the skin in one direction and the body in another (shear), as in sliding down when the bed head is raised. Dampness (such as from perspiration or incontinence) makes the skin even more liable to develop pressure sores.

 

Nursing home residents that are immobile are at the greatest risk of getting bedsores.  This includes nursing home residents who are recovering from strokes, spinal cord injuries, nerve disorders, mental disorders, paralysis, and generally immobile residents.  Most decubitus ulcers occur in the elderly, those over the age of 70.
Nursing home residents who do not get good nutrition (malnourished or undernourished), have incontinence (problems with bladder or bowel control), diabetes, or problems with blood flow (circulation) also have increased risk.

 

A decubitus ulcer appears first as a reddened area of skin, which then starts to break down to form an open, raw, oozing wound.

Bedsores occur at areas of abnormal pressure on the body.  If the nursing home resident is sitting for a long time, this is usually the tailbone (coccyx) or buttocks area, shoulder blades, spine, or backs of the arms or legs.  If the nursing home resident is in bed for a long time, they may occur on the back of the head, ears, shoulder blades, hips, lower back, tailbone, or the backs or sides of the knees, elbows, ankles, or toes.

 

Decubitus ulcers occur in four stages.  Stage 1 has unbroken, but pink or ashen (in darker skin) discoloration with perhaps slight itch or tenderness.  Stage 2 has red, swollen skin with a blister or open areas.  Stage 3 has a crater-like ulcer extending deeper into the skin.  Stage 4 extends to deep fat, muscle, or bone and may have a thick black scab.

 

You should know that many times decubitus ulcers are the result of malpractice by the nursing home.  Malpractice can take many forms, such as failure to properly monitor the resident, or follow physicians orders regarding turning the patient on a regular schedule, or inadequate nutrition, or keeping the resident clean and dry.  The list goes on and on.

Once you begin to suspect malpractice by the nursing home, you must now prove it. Suspecting there is nursing home malpractice and proving it are two entirely different concepts. The medical records will show excellent care provided to the resident. The records will show faithful and timely bed turning, adherence to scrupulous medication schedules, excellent feeding and nutrition, constant supervision, and appropriate and attentive care. The nursing home will provide other reasons for the decline in the health of the resident. The resident has prior medical conditions. The resident is old. The resident refuses to eat. The resident is uncooperative. The resident was not careful. The list goes on and on.

If your loved one has decubitus ulcers (i.e. bed sores), or you believe your loved one may be a victim of nursing home malpractice, call our office immediately. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. GALE has over thirty years of experience in prosecuting claims of nursing home malpractice. Call (312) 372-0300. There is no fee for the consultation. There is no fee at all unless we win and we recover.

 

$100,000.00 For Pre-Existing Injuries That Were Exacerbated By An Auto Accident

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, Rear-Ended

auto-one-car-web

 

Our office recovered $100,000.00 for pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident, in this case a sixty-five year old retired man.

In cases such as this, when the fault of the other driver is obvious, the insurance carrier does not dispute fault.  In fact, the insurance company will gladly agree to pay for all medical bills “reasonable related” to the injuries sustained.  Furthermore, the insurance carrier will agree to pay for a “fair compensation: for the injury itself.

In this case, and in almost all cases, what the insurance carrier believes is “fair compensation” and what a reasonable person will think is “fair compensation” is vastly different.  Likewise with the medical bills.  What the insurance carrier believes are bills “reasonably related” to the injuries sustained and what a reasonable person thinks are bills “reasonably related” are vastly different.

And, to complete matters, many times the injured party, such as our client, will have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident.

In fact, many sixty five year old retired individuals may have pre-existing medical conditions that they are dealing with day to day.  For example, our client had pre-existing knee ailments with bi-lateral knee replacements, shoulder ailments with bilateral shoulder replacements, foot injuries with nerve relocations, hand ailments due to arthritis, etc.  To our client’s dismay, the insurance carrier used these pre-existing ailments as evidence against our client that our client did not injure his shoulders, knees, hands, etc. from the auto incident since he was already “injured.”  And, to make matters worse, the insurance carrier claimed our client’s pain and suffering was not made worse by the auto accident.

The truth is different.  Many times a person’s will have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident.

Many times a person’s pre-existing conditions are asymptomatic and under control prior to an accident, only to be made symptomatic and exacerbated by the auto accident.  And, that is exactly what happened in this case.  Our client had a pre-existing hand injury that, because of the auto accident, now required surgery to repair.

The insurance carrier refused to pay for this surgery.  In fact, the insurance carrier refused to acknowledge that the medical condition, in this case carpal tunnel syndrome and De Querain tenosynovitis, were caused by the accident.

Luckily for our client, we were able to prove that, in fact, the carpal tunnel syndrome and De Querain tenosynovitis were caused by the accident.  Further, we were able to prove that the surgery was the direct result of the accident.

In many auto accidents, the insurance carrier will claim that the pre-existing injuries were not exacerbated by the accident.  The insurance carrier will claim that the pre-existing injuries that were asymptomatic prior to the accident but are now symptomatic after the accident is not the result of the accident.

If you have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident, you have the right to receive not only payment for your medical bills, but also compensation for the worsening of your condition.  Do not let the insurance carrier tell you that your pre-existing medical condition cannot be aggravated by an auto accident.  Or you’re your pre-existing medical condition which not requires additional medical treatment was not caused by the auto accident.

If you have pre-existing injuries that were exacerbated by an auto accident, CALL THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES J. GALE.

$85,000.00 For Pedestrian Struck By Vehicle With No Serious Injuries

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Auto Accidents, No Serious Injuries, Pedestrian-Auto

 

 

Pedestrian In Crosswalk

Pedestrian In Crosswalk

 

Our office recovered $85,000.00 for a pedestrian struck by vehicle with no serious injuries.  In this case, a 36 year old police officer struck by a vehicle while investigating the scene of an auto accident.

 

The police officer was on the scene of another auto accident, investigating the scene.  While the officer was out of his vehicle completing the investigation, a drunken driver came crashing into the scene of the first accident, striking the police officer and multiple vehicles.   The pedestrian struck by vehicle with no serious injuries was rushed by ambulance to the hospital where he underwent extensive tests and examinations.  Luckily, there were no broken bones, no bleeding, no loss of consciousness, no bruises.  Because of the series of negative findings at the hospital, the insurance carrier disputed the extent of the injuries to the police officer, even in this clear liability case.  We had no choice but to file suit against the drunken driver.  The only way the insurance carrier was going to accept the fact that the police officer sustained injuries was to prove it in court.  Eventually, after the expense of litigation, we were able to prove that, in fact, the pedestrian struck by vehicle with no serious injuries did in fact sustain compensable injuries despite the fact that there were no broken bones, cuts or loss of consciousness.

 

When injured in a motor vehicle accident there are some important things you must do and know.  First, you should know that the insurance company will try to convince you that you sustained little or no lasting injuries from the accident.  They will argue, like the pedestrian above, that since no bones were broken, no cuts were sustained, no head injuries incurred and no objective findings from the various tests at the hospital, that you were not really hurt.  This of course may not only be false, but insulting.

Second, you should know that the insurance carrier will try to settle your case for less than full compensation.  What you think is fair compensation and what the insurance company thinks is fair compensation is rarely the same.  The insurance carrier will remind you that your medical bills have been paid by your health insurance company so the medical bills do not need to be considered.  This is wrong.  The insurance carrier will point out to you that your wages have been paid by your employer during your time off so your wages do not need to be considered.  This is wrong.  The insurance carrier will point out that the tests taken at the hospital were negative so you had no injuries.  This is wrong.  You will have to explain to the insurance carrier that they are wrong on their assumptions and prove to them why they are wrong.

 

Third, you should know that a “simple” auto accident is never simple.  The insurance carrier may not have enough insurance to adequately compensate you for your losses.  You may have to file an uninsured or an under-insured motorist claim.  There may be multiple parties at fault, or multiple parties wanting compensation from the same insurance carrier. Your injuries might be related to a pre-existing condition.  The insurance company disputes your injuries, or your medical bills or your time off work.  The areas of dispute are unless.

 

This is what you should do.  First, you should get the names and addresses of all witnesses.  Second, seek medical treatment immediately if you are in pain.  You should report to the doctor all parts of your body that are affected, even if the pain does not seem severe.  Days later, the pain may be much worse.  Third, you should take pictures of your car, immediately at the scene if possible.   Finally, you should contact your insurance company.  When doing this, do not give your insurance company a statement or allow them to record your statement as there is always a potential claim for uninsured or under insured motorist coverage.  Finally, should retain an attorney immediately.

 

Your initial consultation with the LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. GALE is free and you will be under no obligation.  We will discuss with you your rights and provide you a free and comprehensive evaluation of your case. We will explain to you in detail in steps involved in prosecuting your claim.  At no time will you be charged a fee unless we collect.

 

$100,466.00 For Construction Worker Injured At Construction Site

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Construction Site, Work Injuries

construction workers on steel beam

 

Our office recovered $100,466.00 For Construction Worker Injured at Construction Site when a concrete frame support fell, striking the employee and injuring the employee’s lower back.

Injuries at work are all too common.  In this case, the employee, a construction supervisor, was simply viewing the work site when, with no warning or notice, the frame support fell and landed on the employees back.  The employee sustained a severe back strain/sprain.

The employer did not contest the incident or the fact that the incident was work related.  As a result, the employee received his weekly benefits, two-thirds of his salary. In addition, the employee received full medical coverage and payment for all of his medical bills.  In fact, for most workers compensation claims, the employer does not contest the payment of the workers wage benefits or the payment of the medical bills.  But this is not to say that the employer agrees with the nature of the injury, the extent of the injury, the permanency or lack of permanency of the injury, the need for future medical care, the ability of the employee to return to work at his prior position and duties and when or if the employee can return to work full duty.

In this case, our office was able to obtain $100,466.00 For Construction Worker Injured at Construction Site for a  back sprain.  There was no surgery.  In fact, surgery was not even recommended.

In the overwhelming majority of the cases, a simple un-operative back sprain is not a large claim.  The argument is simple.  If the injury was severe, there would have been surgery.  But in this case, we were able to prove that the injury was severe.  So severe that the employee, despite having a simple back sprain, would not be able to return to his prior position.  We were able to prove that the employee would not be able to perform his prior duties.  Because of this, we were able to recover a large settlement for the employee.

If you have been injured at work, and you did not have surgery, you may still have the right to a large compensatory claim.  Our office has recovered many large awards for workers injured at work with no surgery and no recommendation of surgery.  If you believe you have sustained a serious injury, call the Law Firm of Charles J. Gale, P.C.

 

$75,000 for Tenant who Tripped on Uneven Hallway Floor

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Landlord Tenant, Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls, Trip and Falls

Tenant who Tripped on Uneven Hallway Floor

Tenant who Tripped on Uneven Hallway Floor

Our office recovered $75,000 for Tenant who Tripped on Uneven Hallway Floor.

A thirty-five year old woman, a tenant of the building she was living in, exited her apartment and tripped on the uneven hallway floor. The landlord had not repaired the uneven hallway floor even though the uneven floor had existed in this condition for a period of time.

The law in Illinois provides that the landlord has a duty to maintain the condition of common areas of the building. Common areas are generally those areas of the building that are used by all the tenants. If the landlord fails to repair or maintain the common areas, and a tenant in injured as the result of that failure to repair, the landlord can be held liable to for the injuries sustained by the tenant.

The insurance carrier will however attempt to escape liability, even in cases where liability would seem clear. The insurance company will first claim that the tenant never told the landlord of the dangerous condition. That is, the landlord will simply claim that he was simply unaware of the uneven floor. This is not a good defense, since actual notice of the dangerous condition is not required if the landlord created the condition, or had constructive notice of the condition or should have known of the condition. The landlord has a duty to discover the defective condition and to correct or repair the defective condition.

The insurance company will next claim the tenant herself was negligent. After all, the tenant most likely knew of the dangerous condition prior to the injury. And, the tenant was able to avoid the dangerous condition for days, weeks, sometimes months prior to the incident. The landlord will simply argue that the dangerous condition was open and obvious. This is a very common defense by landlords. And, on this particular occasion, the tenant may have been further negligent by rushing or not being particularly careful. The insurance company will rely on yet another legal theory, the doctrine of comparative negligence. That is, sometimes both parties can be at fault and liability should be allocated to both parties relative to their degree of fault. Using the theory of comparative negligence, the recovery to the tenant, if any, can be reduced to half.

There is yet another legal theory that the tenant can use to his defense. That is, there is an exception to the doctrine of open and obvious if the tenant was distracted when she fell. Many times the tenant will be distracted at the time of the incident. This is a valid exception to the doctrine of open and obvious if this tenants’ distraction was reasonable.

If you are injured due to the negligence of your landlord, do not try to resolve these legal issues without an attorney. Call the Law Offices of Charles J. Gale.

$42,500 For Letter Carrier Injured While Delivering The Mail

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Letter Carrier, Premises Liability, Slip and Falls, Trip and Falls

letter-carrier-web

Our office recovered $42,500 for U.S. letter carrier injured while delivering the mail.

A thirty-six year old letter carrier letter carrier injured while delivering the mail sprained his ankle.  For many letter carriers, getting injured while delivering the mail can be an all too common occurrence.  The risks faced by the letter carrier are almost unlimited but this does not mean that the letter carrier is without rights.  In fact, a letter carrier has often time many rights, including the right to receive compensation from the property owner for his injuries.

When a letter carrier is injured while delivering the mail, he will automatically have a U.S. workers compensation claim.   This will compensate the letter carrier for lost wages and for payment of all of his medical bills incurred.  But this is only where the rights of the letter carrier begin.  The letter carrier injured while delivering the mail many times will also have a claim against the property owner, in this case, a home owner.

The law in Illinois provides that the owner or occupier of the premises owes to persons present on the premises the duty of exercising ordinary and reasonable care to see that the premises are reasonably safe for their use.  This includes duty to discover defects and dangerous conditions and the duty to correct dangers or to give sufficient warning of them.

The exception to this rule of liability to the property owner is when the defect is “open and obvious.”  The insurance carrier will invariably invoke this exception to liability by claiming that the defect was “open and obvious” and therefore, they are not responsible.

With all rules, there are exceptions to the rule.  And, there are exceptions to the exception.  In this case, even if the defect is “open and obvious”, the land owner can still be held liable if he had reason to expect that an invitee’s (i.e. Letter carrier) attention will be distracted, so that the letter carrier will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or will fail to protect himself against it

In this case, the letter carrier injured while delivering the mail was walking up the front porch steps of an obviously defective front porch steps.  So naturally, the insurance carrier claimed there was not liability since the defect was “open and obvious.”  However, because it was reasonable to assume that the letter carrier may have been distracted, the home owner was found liable.

The injuries in this case were not serious and did not require surgery.  Nevertheless, even for this injury, a sprained ankle, our office was able to obtain for the letter carrier $42,500.00.  Letter carriers sustain these and more serious injuries frequently and many times receive nothing for their injuries.

If you are injured due to a defect on the premises which cause you injury, even a relatively minor injury, do not try to resolve these legal issues without an attorney.  CALL THE LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. GALE.

$60,000 For Foot Injury On Property Owned By Another

Written by Charles J. Gale. Posted in Foot and Ankle Injuries, Premises Liability

foot-&-ankle-injuries-web

Our office recovered $60,000 for Foot Injury Caused on Property Owned by Another. A 29 year old male sustained a degloving injury to his right big toe. The accident took place when an old fashioned concrete incinerator collapsed from age and fell on his right foot. The concrete slab that fell on his foot was heavy enough to cause a degloving of the right toe, partially exposing the bone.

Naturally, the insurance carrier denied all liability for the incident. What did the property owner do wrong? Why didn’t our client notice the obvious worn and dangerous condition of the incinerator? What caused the incinerator to fall in the first place? Since our client was there when it fell, he must have done something to cause it to fall. Our office filed suit against the property owner.

Most lay individuals assume that a property owner is automatically liable for injuries sustained on their property. This is not the law in Illinois. In fact, this is not the law anywhere. Property owners only have the legal duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to see that the premises are safe for their intended use. If the property owner did not violate this standard of care, he is generally not liable for your injuries.

And, even if the property owner did not exercise reasonable care, he may still not be liable for injuries sustained if the hazard was open and obvious. That is, the property owner is allowed to expect that the individual on his property will discover and avoid open and obvious dangers. The law expects the individual to be responsible for his own safety.

If the property owner claims and proves that he exercised ordinary care, another possibility exists to prove liability. That is, the property owner can be held liable for injuries sustained on his property if he either knew of the dangerous condition or should have known of the dangerous condition, or that he created the condition.

Assuming all of the above obstacles to recovery are met, the injured party still has to prove the nature and extent of his injuries, and that the injuries were caused by the defect.

During litigation, our office proved that the incinerator was in fact old and obsolete, and full of full thickness cracks throughout. We were able to prove that the incinerator was improperly maintained and improperly installed. In short, we were able to prove that the property owner in fact did not exercise ordinary and reasonable care to see that the premises were safe for their intended use. Furthermore, we were able to prove that the property owner was well aware of the dangerous condition, or if not actually aware, that he should have been aware.

If you or your loved one is injured on someone else’s property, and you feel that the cause of your injury was an unsafe condition, contact the Law Offices of Charles J. Gale.

Contact Us

Law Offices of Charles J. Gale, PC
53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite #523
Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 372-0300