• Skip to main content

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers

Client-first legal representation for injury victims. Injured? Free Consultation:

(312) 376-3812

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Attorneys
      • Ken Levinson
      • Jay Stefani
      • Vanessa A. Gebka
    • Practice Areas
      • Truck Crashes
      • Bus Collisions
      • Auto Accidents
      • Child Injuries
  • Firm News
  • Library
    • Articles
    • Cases
    • Law
    • Video
  • Blog
  • For Lawyers
    • Focus Groups
  • Free Case Review

Levinson and Stefani

Ken Speaks to Select Group of Trucking and Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers

December 4, 2018 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Founding partner, Ken Levinson, was honored with an invitation to help teach other trial lawyers at a private program for attorney members of the American Association for Justice last week in our nation’s capital. Ken shared his knowledge and experience advocating for victims of serious truck collision and traumatic brain injury cases with his fellow practitioners in conferences held on Friday and Saturday.

Ken taught other trucking attorneys about his experiences running focus groups in Chicago. In one example, he discussed a serious injury resulting from a tractor-trailer crash. Ken detailed ideas and strategies to help a severely injured young man hold a driver and trucking company accountable for their careless actions.

Through his talk, Ken helped other lawyers by testing themes that would resonate with a jury and to craft arguments that would most effectively help to obtain a fair result for their injured clients. He shared exhibits, videos, photos of the crash scene, as well as examples of truck safety rules and regulations that were helpful in telling the young man’s story and how to best express to a jury how the defendants’ careless acts led to his condition. He also showed the approximately 80 lawyers in attendance video clips demonstrating how participants of his focus group reacted to his presentation and what they thought of the case.

On Saturday, Ken spoke to a group of trial lawyers about effectively representing clients in traumatic brain injury cases. Specifically, he shared his experience helping another lawyer with a case in a rural, conservative county, where even after the wife of a brain injury victim testified at a deposition, the insurance company offered no money for her husband’s tragic and avoidable injury.

After spending the day with the victim’s family and learning about what they have gone through and what they have been dealing with since this awful crash, Ken shared his experience with his colleagues of how he was able to help the family’s attorney, despite no offer to settle from the defense, to present the family’s testimony at trial in a more effective way leading to the jury awarding a record setting verdict in the case, by truly learning their story and helping share it effectively on the client’s day in court.

City of Chicago Initiates New Automated Speed Enforcement System

October 30, 2018 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

speed control camera.

The City of Chicago has initiated a new Automated Speed Enforcement System throughout areas designated as safety zones. These zones include areas around public and private schools and areas surrounding parks. Vehicle speeds are now being photo-enforced on these roadways and owners of vehicles will be subject to the following penalties: $35 if the recorded speed is 6 or more miles over the applicable speed limit, but less than 11 miles over such speed limit; or $100 if the recorded speed is 11 or more miles per hour over the applicable speed limit.

The Automated Speed Enforcement System uses photographic, radar, laser and other electrical or mechanical devices to record the speed of a vehicle and captures photographs or records images of a vehicle and the vehicle’s registration plate that violates this new law. Violations recorded in the first 30 days of a camera’s installation will receive a warning notice. In addition to the warning notice provided, each license plate will receive one warning notice per license plate.

Chicago experiences approximately 3,000 crashes annually between motor vehicles and pedestrians, about 800 of which involve children.

Introduction of Electric Scooter-Sharing to Chicago?

October 4, 2018 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Row of scooters parkedIn recent months, the city of Chicago has been introduced to the latest trend in mode of transportation: the electric scooter. As ride-hailing technology such as Uber and Lyft have become a staple for city-wide transportation, companies have been looking for the next biggest movement in transportation options.

After the success of Divvy bikes, a Chicago-owned program that has docking stations throughout the city, the next step in micro-mobility has brought us rented electric scooter programs designed solely for adults 18+. Users download an app that alerts them to the nearest scooters. A user may then ride these scooters for an initial fee of $1 and then 15 cents for each additional minute the scooter is used. Unlike Divvy bikes, which require the rider to find the nearest dock, these rental electric-scooters can be left anywhere that is convenient for the user, as the scooters will self-lock through the app at the end of the trip. With varying degrees of success in other cities, dockless scooter-sharing companies such as Lime and Bird have set their sights on Chicago. The initial test runs have been at several Chicago festivals this summer.

Although some are excited at the idea of a new affordable and environmentally-friendly mode of transportation that helps residents avoid the Chicago traffic, issues with roll-outs in other cities have kept officials wary and unwilling to move ahead with a wider test run without regulations set in place. This caution stems from other cities having to deal with backlash over the unregulated introduction of these rented electric scooters.

Many of the cities with electric-scooter programs have faced an influx of emergency room visits from residents who have been injured in electric-scooter accidents. The lack of rules makes it difficult for city officials and residents alike to navigate this unknown territory. In California, where the shared electric-scooters were first made popular, city officials have scrambled to catch up to the new fad, trying their best to implement rules such as the number of scooters allowed, where residents may use these scooters, and a requirement that all riders wear helmets. Critics point out that although the scooters look more like toys than a legitimate mode of transportation, they inflict the same amount of harm as any other motorized vehicle. These scooters are actually more dangerous because there are no safety regulations to comply with.

As Chicago city officials continue to work out regulations for scooter-sharing companies, it will be important for interested users to fully understand the risks at hand and necessary precautions they will have to take when choosing to use electric scooters.

Flaws Found in Driver Assist Systems

August 16, 2018 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

How Active Lane-Keeping Systems Performed in IIHS Road Tests
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Electronic driver assist systems have steadily become a common feature found in many vehicles. A goal of semi-automated control is to try and protect drivers from dangerous circumstances that occur while on the road.

Although semi-automated is meant to increase the safety of drivers, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently released a paper titled “Reality Check,” warning drivers that “cars and trucks with electronic driver assist systems may not see stopped vehicles and could even steer you into a crash if you’re not paying attention.” The warning was issued in August 2018 after five systems from Tesla, Mercedes, BMW, and Volvo were tested on a track and public roads. When testing the system with the adaptive cruise control turned off but automatic braking on, the institute discovered that the system in two Tesla vehicles, the Model S and Model 3, were among the most dangerous, being the only two models that failed to stop in time when tested on a track. In contrast, while on the road, the institute found that every vehicle except for Tesla’s Model 3 failed to respond in time to stopped vehicles in front of them.

The institute’s chief research officer, David Zuby, stated that while the systems do increase safety, the tests show that they are not 100 percent reliable and drivers must always pay attention to the road, even if they have electronic driver assist systems to aid them. Zuby went on to say that although the scenarios showing ways in which the systems are flawed are often covered in the vehicles’ owner manuals, most drivers do not read the owner’s manual in detail and are therefore unfamiliar with the necessary precautions they should take.

Despite systems having names such as Tesla’s “Autopilot” or Volvo’s “Pilot Assist,” drivers must remember that the vehicles are not actually self-driving. The systems are there to help aid drivers with steering or speed control.

When on the road, you should always stay focused and be aware of your surroundings. As the article made clear, there are still limits to the technology of these electronic driver assist systems and with some drivers’ tendency to misuse them, you can never be too cautious when it comes to your safety and the safety of others.

Tiffannie M. Kennedy Appointed to Standing Committee on Women and the Law of the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA)

July 24, 2018 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

attorney Tiffannie Kennedy

We are so pleased to announce that Tiffannie M. Kennedy, of Levinson and Stefani, in Chicago, Illinois, has been appointed as a member of the Standing Committee on Women and the Law of the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA).

The 28,000-member association, with offices in Springfield and Chicago, provides professional services to Illinois lawyers, and education and services to the public.

“Section councils and committees are the backbone of the ISBA,” said James F. McCluskey, of Lisle, ISBA President for 2018-2019. “Leadership is vital to the success of these groups.”

Committees have the responsibility for specific programs and activities in such areas as professional ethics and delivery of legal services. Sections provide continuing education and legislative services to lawyers who practice in a specific area of law. Each section is governed by a council appointed by the state bar president. Judges and non-lawyers also serve on committees and section councils.

The mission of the ISBA Standing Committee on Women and the Law is to study and to focus on areas of law uniquely affecting women; assess, design, and implement programs designed to satisfy women’s unmet legal needs; study and recommend legislation uniquely affecting women; provide a forum for action relating to women’s issues; and, explore ways to encourage women in their involvement in the legal community at all levels.

Tiffannie M. Kennedy received her J.D. from the University of Missouri at Kansas City in 2012, and focuses her practice in personal injury and trucking litigation.

Eastman v Biomet: Read Your Release / Settlement Language

July 11, 2018 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Two hands are tearing up a signed paper. Cancellation of contract, document or agreement. Business concept

In Eastman v. Biomet Inc., a man who had already accepted $25,000 to settle a products-liability suit against Biomet filed a second suit in hopes of receiving an additional $175,000. Eastman v. Biomet, Inc., No. 17-3463, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14106 (7th Cir. May 29, 2018). Biomet had been in a multi-district litigation where the plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered injuries due to Biomet’s artificial hip devices. The parties entered into a Master Settlement Agreement which outlined the procedures for determining the settlement amounts that would be received by the individual plaintiffs. The agreement provided that certain categories of plaintiffs would presumptively receive $200,000 with Biomet being able to offer a reduced amount in appropriate cases. The agreement also provided mediation of disputes about the settlement awards as an option.

Eastman was offered $25,000 to settle his case with Biomet. “Biomet’s attorney gave four reasons for the reduction: (1) Eastman had no medical records from the four-and-a-half years after he received the artificial hip device, (2) he never had been definitively diagnosed with injuries caused by the device, (3) he had suffered physical injuries in a brawl the day before he had surgery to replace the device, and (4) his medical records described him as “a horrible patient”.” It was also mentioned that mediation could be arranged if Eastman so desired, but Eastman chose not to mediate. Eastman accepted Biomet’s offer and signed a broad release of his claims, which essentially stated that in return for the $25,000 payment, he released Biomet from “all claims … of whatever kind … whether known or unknown … [that are] in any manner connected with” Biomet’s hip-replacement device.

Despite signing the release, Eastman sued Biomet for breach of the Master Settlement Agreement a few months later. His reasoning was that Biomet had breached the Agreement by reducing his settlement award from $200,000 to $25,000 without “good cause”. Biomet moved for summary judgment stating that the release Eastman had signed to settle the first suit barred him from the second suit, at which time Eastman responded that the release he had signed was not a binding contract but a counteroffer since he had made changes to the document. Unbeknownst to either Biomet or Eastman’s own attorney, Eastman had changed “irrevocable” to “revocable” in a provision that read: “By signing this Release, the RELEASING PARTY understands that it is irrevocable.” Second, he changed “binding” to “nonbinding” in a provision that read that the “Release shall be final and binding upon RELEASING PARTY.” Finally, he changed the choice-of-law provision so that it stated the release was to be governed by Arkansas law rather than Indiana law.

The district court rejected that argument and granted Biomet’s motion for summary judgment. Eastman appealed, challenging the district court’s conclusion that the release barred him from his second lawsuit. The court said that the Master Settlement Agreement had given both parties the opportunity to dispute the base settlement amount through mediation and that Eastman had waived this right when he accepted and retained Biomet’s $25,000 payment as settlement. Eastman could not use the agreement as “a basis for a contract claim for $200,000 while simultaneously ignoring the provision conditioning that sum on a process that he has eschewed.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 100
  • Page 101
  • Page 102
  • Page 103
  • Page 104
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 138
  • Go to Next Page »

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers in Chicago / Attorney Advertising