The matter arose from a lawsuit filed against the City where a Chicago bicyclist was . . . [Read more.]
Monday, January 18, 2016
City of Chicago Fails In Attempt to Immunize Itself From Responsibility For Injuries Caused by Bike Lane Hazards
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
"Your client has a duty to pay attention to where she is going." That was the response we received from an insurance company after its driver doored a woman whom we represented as she rode her bicycle on a residential road in Chicago last summer. The 39 year old business owner, wife and mom sustained serious injuries, racking up more than $37,000 in medical bills. Upon receiving a dismissive letter from the driver's insurer, GEICO, we filed a lawsuit. The case recently settled for . . . [Read more]
That's what happened after a husband and wife struck a Chicago bicyclist at the intersection of North Franklin Street and West Hubbard Street. Recently, we made them pay, resolving the case for more than eleven times the amount of our client's medical bills. It is very unusual for an Illinois personal injury case to . . . [Read more]
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
After deliberating for more than five and a half hours on Friday, a Cook County jury decided to compensate a male bicyclist injured in a 2011 collision with a SUV in Palos Heights. Our firm represented the cyclist at the week long trial.
The case was a tough one and the verdict of $37,000 reflects the jury's finding that our client contributed significantly to cause the crash. Police had ticketed the cyclist at the scene for causing the collision. The defendant driver's insurance company had sent the cyclist a bill for the substantial damage done to his Lexus SUV. No settlement offer was ever made by the defense.
The crash occurred at around 8:00 a.m. on May 21, 2011 at the intersection of Harlem Avenue and 131st Street at the northern edge of the Burr Oak Woods Forest Preserve. The then 59 year old cyclist was riding his bike on the Tinley Creek Bike Path which winds through the preserve. The defendant driver, a retired surgeon, and his wife were driving north on Harlem. The bike path crosses Harlem a few feet south of 131st. Here is a depiction of the intersection used at trial:
The cyclist approached Harlem from the east. When he reached the crossing, marked with thick white diagonal lines, he saw that the light controlling cross traffic was red so he proceeded. At the same time, the defendant was stopped in the left turn lane on Harlem waiting for the light to change so he could proceed west on 131st Street. As the cyclist entered the crossing, the left turn arrow controlling the driver's lane turned green and he proceeded. The bicyclist struck the left side front quarter panel of the vehicle and fell to the ground breaking his left wrist. The break was bad, requiring surgery.
Our biggest challenge at trial was overcoming the defendant's assertion that our client knew the traffic signal was changing and attempted to speed across the intersection to beat the light. The defendant's attorneys had two important pieces of evidence to support that position. One, was the testimony of a witness, an emergency medical technician, who happened to be in an ambulance stopped at the intersection facing east on 131st Street at the time of the crash. He testified that while his vehicle was stopped at a red light at 131st and Harlem he saw the man on the bike cross at what seemed to be a high rate of speed just before the collision. The implication was that if the ambulance had a red light then so must have the cyclist coming from the opposite direction. Secondly, the defendant argued that the extensive damage to the SUV and the severity of the bicyclist's injury suggested a relatively high speed collision; again, supporting the notion that the cyclist was trying to beat the light.
Honestly, we were worried. It was based on the witness's observations that the responding police officer laid fault at the feet of our client. Would a jury do the same?
The jury never heard that the cyclist was ticketed. The citation was thrown out and generally the fact that one party or another received a traffic ticket is not admissible evidence at trial. It is the province of the jury to determine fault based on the evidence, not that of a police officer making a snap decision based on someone's observations. We were able to demonstrate that the witness was very unsure of what he saw and when he saw it. Also, the law and evidence strongly supported our position that the driver failed to look before proceeding into the intersection. The witness felt certain that his vehicle was stopped at a red light facing east on 131st Street when the collision occurred. However, he could not say that the ambulance had quite reached the intersection when the cyclist first started across Harlem. This allowed us to argue that our client entered the crossing when it was still legal for him to do so, but that he simply got caught in the change of lights. During my closing argument I showed the jury a blow up of a portion of the Illinois Vehicle Code which instructs drivers how they must proceed when facing a light that has just turned green. Section 11-306 requires that a motor vehicle facing a green arrow signal, "Shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection." Certainly bicycles are "other traffic." Since the point of impact was with the front side of the SUV, had the driver looked before proceeding the cyclist would have been visible to him just a couple of feet to his right. Therefore, he either did not look, despite his insistence to the contrary, or he looked but did not see our client. Either way, I argued that the defendant violated section 11-306 and was negligent.
The jury clearly had a hard time figuring this case out having spent so long deliberating. In the end they reached a compromise verdict. They felt that the driver was indeed negligent, but so was our client. It is hard to see the result as unfair.
Getting caught in the change of lights is a consistent problem for bicyclists. When crossing a wide intersection -- Harlem at 131st is five lanes wide -- there is a good chance that you will get caught in the change of lights. Bicyclists should be mindful of any crossing countdown, if there is one, before starting into an intersection. Consider whether your light will remain green, or at least yellow, until you reach the other side. On the other hand, drivers simply must look before proceeding. The law, and common sense for that matter, makes it clear that a driver cannot simply charge forward on a green light.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
|Tilek Tulemyshev in an|
A taxi driver who fled the scene after striking a Chicago bicyclist from behind in Wicker Park could not escape accountability. The driver, Tilek Tulemyshev, and the cab company, Best Cab Corp, have paid $300,000 to the injured biker, a 33 year old airline attendant, following a lawsuit filed against them by FK Law.
On September 10, 2011 the female cyclist was riding northbound on North Damen Avenue with her husband and a friend. When the three reached Damen's intersection with West Webster Avenue they stopped for a red light. At the same time, Mr. Tulemyshev was stopped along the curb to their right picking up a fare. When the light turned green the bicyclists began pedaling across the intersection. The taxi also accelerated forward. Upon reaching the middle of the intersection, Mr. Tulemyshev crashed into the rear of the woman's bike throwing her into the street where he then ran her down. The woman's husband screamed for him to stop. He did for a moment. He then threw the taxi into reverse and stomped on the accelerator driving the taxi backwards back into the intersection where he rammed another vehicle. With the terrified fare still in the cab, Mr. Tulemyshev then put the car in drive and sped east on Webster. A block or two later he abruptly stopped, let his passenger escape then drove off.
The bicyclist was left with scrapes and bruises over much of her body. More significantly, she suffered torn cartilage in her left knee requiring surgery. Her injuries left her unable to work for a significant period of time. She incurred over $60,000 in medical bills.
Despite undeniable negligence by the driver, he and his attorneys initially refused to compensate our client for the harm he caused. Instead they asserted that her knee injury was the result of a skiing accident years before the crash. That earlier incident caused tears to her left anterior cruciate ligament and medial meniscus. However, for years before the 2011 crash she was symptom free and lived a healthy, active life. She regularly ran and rode her bicycle without pain. That changed after being hit by the taxi. Our challenge was to succinctly demonstrate that the crash was the cause of her ongoing knee problem. It was complicated. The first orthopaedic specialist that evaluated her felt that the crash had only resulted in a sprain to the knee. However, another specialist examined film of her knee and determined that while ACL and meniscus tears preexisted the crash, that at least the injury to her meniscus was exacerbated by the collision and was a very significant factor in her knee problems since.
The evidence regarding her knee injury was solid, but the defense seemed to view it as nuanced. They continued to refused to offer what we and our client felt was reasonable compensation. Then, two things happened which seemed to tighten the screws. First, Mr. Tulemyshev, at first cooperative during litigation, disappeared. Neither his attorneys nor we could locate him. He never did submit himself for a deposition in the case. Secondly, we filed and won the right to add a count to the lawsuit seeking punitive damages. The vast majority of personal injury lawsuits filed in Illinois seek only compensatory damages, that is, money to compensate the victim for the harm caused. Punitive damages are rarely provided for and are meant to punish a wrongdoer. The approval of a judge is necessary even to allow a jury to consider providing for punitive damages. Once we argued for and receive that approval in this case, the defense finally saw the light and did the right thing.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
He thought he got away with it.
When the driver of an Infiniti SUV struck a Chicago bicyclist earlier this year, fracturing his collar bone, he chose to flee. What he did not count on was the bicyclist, a 35 year old Chicago pastry chef, having the wherewithal to snap a photo of his license plate. This enabled the police to quickly track down the driver and cite him for failing to exercise due care to avoid hitting a bicyclist. The cyclist's quick thinking also helped us as his attorneys secure for him a sizable settlement.
The collision occurred at around 7 p.m. on February 12, 2015 on Chicago's northwest side. The bicyclist was riding home from work southbound near 5562 North Lincoln Avenue. The weather was cold, but dry. Though the cyclist did not have a headlight on his bike, his helmet had reflective properties and the area was very well lit. He was riding on the right side of the road. When he passed in front of a curb cut for the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store, the driver of a 1999 Infiniti QX4, northbound on Lincoln, suddenly made a left turn into the lot. When he did he smashed into the bicyclist, "t-boning" him. The driver, who had numerous past moving violations, did not help the badly injured cyclist. When it became clear that he was about to take off, the cyclist pulled out his smartphone and snapped a photo of the vehicle's license plate. With the plate number Chicago police officers who arrived at the scene went to work locating the driver. The bicyclist was loaded into an ambulance and taken to Swedish Covenant Hospital. He was diagnosed with a right clavicle fracture.
The bicyclist eventually hired our law firm to represent him against the driver. After several months of work we were able to secure a settlement with the driver's insurer, GEICO, 4 1/2 times greater than his medical bills.
There are a few interesting points here. Firstly, the importance of riding with a device of some kind that can take pictures, a smartphone, camera or GoPro type device, and using it if something bad happens, cannot be overstated. Had our client not photographed the vehicle's plate the driver likely would have faced no repercussions for his conduct. Though there are many video cameras positioned throughout Chicago, most do not reproduce images of sufficient quality to enable the police or us to make out a plate number. Secondly, if the driver flees and is caught the repercussions will be far greater. Had the driver stuck around we still would have resolved the case successfully, but GEICO undoubtedly understood that they had to pay more because the driver left the scene. Thirdly, though all bicyclists are required by Illinois law to ride with at least a front facing headlight at night, not having one does not necessarily preclude recovery. The crash occurred in a very well lite area and the bicyclist wore a helmet with reflective properties. Despite his lack of a headlight, the driver should have seen him.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
|One of the bike lanes on North|
Kedzie Avenue where Robert
Lewis was killed
Chicago bicyclist, Robert Lewis, died on Friday a week after being struck by a semi truck as he rode his bike in the 3400 block of North Kedzie, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. He was 48 years old. It will be of little consolation to his family that he is the first Chicago cyclist to die in four months.
The deadly crash occurred at 1:30 p.m. on September 2nd in Chicago's Avondale neighborhood. Though the details of the crash have not been reported both sides of North Kedzie where the crash took place have clearly marked, dedicated bicycle lanes. It is not clear whether the semi driver was ticketed.