Yvonda was the victim of a car crash back in 2012. She shares her experience working with Levinson and Stefani.
What to expect during a mediation
Mediation is a term that gets thrown around a lot in legal circles. Ken describes the process of a mediation, what happens, and how to prepare.
Founding Partner Ken Levinson to speak at Cleveland Academy of Trial Attorneys Seminar Series
Ken’s presentation takes place on Wednesday, March 9
Levinson and Stefani founding partner Ken Levinson will headline the upcoming edition of the Cleveland Academy of Trial Attorneys Seminar Series, an ongoing presentation that welcomes prominent trial lawyers to share practical insight on ways to better represent their clients. The Seminar Series takes place on Wednesday, March 9 from 12-1:30pm at The Club at Key Center (127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH).
Titled Using Focus Groups to Maximize Case Value, Levinson’s talk will address the use of focus groups to improve odds of winning cases. The process involves recruiting a panel to evaluate evidence and testimony to help attorneys analyze facts, frame positions, and shape questioning based on answers provided by participating group members.
Levinson has successfully conducted hundreds of focus groups on behalf of attorneys and firms both locally and nationally, many of which have gone on to achieve successful jury verdicts as a result. He frequently speaks at seminars around the country to discuss best practices and ways to capitalize on the information gathered during the litigation process.
Levinson is a graduate of the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College and the author of Litigating Major Automobile Injury and Death Cases, the newest volume of the reference litigation series published by AAJ Press/Thomson Reuters. He was recently listed in the Illinois Super Lawyers Top 100 in 2016, his second appearance on the list. He is the founding partner of Levinson and Stefani, a Chicago-based law firm offering client-first legal representation. The firm focuses on truck, auto and bus-related accidents, as well as child injury cases.
The public duty rule in Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection Dist.
Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection Dist. 2016 IL 117952
“Hurry” was the last word uttered by Coretta Coleman, as she attempted to get help. She dialled 911 at 6:10 p.m. in early June of 2008. Coretta told the 911 operator that she was unable to breathe. She asked for an ambulance and provided her address, telling the operator to hurry. The 911 operator put her on hold and then transferred the call to another operator. The initial 911 operator did not convey the information provided by Coretta to the new operator, despite policy directing operators to do so. The new operator never heard Coretta’s voice and, twice, attempted to call the number back, only to receive a busy tone. The new operator dispatched an ambulance at 6:13 p.m. and labeled it an unknown medical emergency.
At 6:19 p.m. the East Joliet Fire Protection District ambulance arrived Coleman’s residence, but after attempting to enter the house they were ordered to leave by their supervisor. Afterwards, neighbors called 911 to ask for police to open the Coleman’s door for another ambulance. At 6:37 p.m. the initial 911 operator called the second operator and told him the nature of the earlier call. The second operator then asked for the information again, in order to send another ambulance to Coretta. The initial operator did not give the entire address and the ambulance was erroneously dispatched, causing the ambulance to arrive at the correct address 11 minutes later than normal. At 6:51 p.m., 41 minutes after Coretta asked the operator to “hurry,” ambulances arrived to find Mr. Coleman pulling into the driveway. He let the paramedics in, but his wife was unresponsive and was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
Mr. Coleman sued East Joliet Fire Protection District, its ambulance crew, Will County, the two 911 operators, and Orland Central Dispatch. Mr. Coleman alleged that all were negligent and/or willful and wanton in their acts and omissions that ultimately deprived his wife of a fighting chance to live. The circuit court of Will County granted the Defendants summary judgment, which essentially ended Mr. Coleman’s case. The appellate court affirmed the decision and Mr. Coleman appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
Typically, governmental entities and their emergency response personnel are immune from civil liabilities arising from negligence in providing emergency response services. Pursuant to a series of statutes and a concept known as the public duty rule, claims against many public entities (and their personnel) typically fail because the public entities and personnel do not owe specific individuals any legal duty. Moreover, even if a duty is owed, the statutes immunize the public entity for conduct that does not rise to that which is willful and wanton.
A segmented and heated Supreme Court controversially abolished the public duty rule. The Court departed from stare decisis—the idea that previous court rulings guide new court rulings—and argued that the public duty rule was causing inconsistencies within the court system, that the public duty rule was against public policy, and that the public duty rule was made obsolete by statutes enacted by the legislature. The majority decision, which received less support than the dissent, concluded that these cases are best determined by application of conventional tort principles in conjunction with the statutes that afford immunities, rather than a common law tool that precludes a finding of duty for public entities.
Mr. Coleman has since passed away but this Supreme Court ruling gives his estate the opportunity to make its case in court.
TEARS Foundation recognizes Levinson and Stefani
Nothing like a gift to brighten a dreary afternoon
On Wednesday, we received a pleasant surprise from our friends at the Illinois Chapter of the TEARS Foundation, one of the great non-profit organizations we work with and sponsor. The folks at TEARS sent us a plaque in appreciation of our support in 2015, though it’s TEARS that deserves recognition.
The TEARS Foundation has provided meaningful assistance and resources to thousands of people since its founding in 2012, helping families recover from one of the most difficult situations imaginable: the loss of a baby.
Part of their work is to lift a heavy financial burden by covering the cost of burial or cremation services. The organization also provides free support groups and specially trained peer companions who have completed a highly comprehensive training program.
The Seattle-based non-profit has received recognition for Innovation in Service by the Non-Profit Excellence Awards and the Pay It Forward Award by Principal Global Financial. TEARS founder Sarah Slack was named a finalist for People Magazine’s Heroes Among Us Award in 2009, and was named one of the Top 5 Women of the Year by Seattle’s Evening Magazine.
Along with our annual support of the TEARS Foundation, we were thrilled to act as a presenting sponsor for its annual Illinois Rock and Walk, where Ken spoke on behalf of the firm. We’re proud to be associated with TEARS and we look forward to even more great events and opportunities in the future. And rest assured, we’ll find a prominent place in the office for our new plaque. Many thanks, TEARS Foundation.
Autonomous vehicles: We predict the future
What will we be doing 50 years from now? Along with the new iPhone L (how long before Apple switches to Roman numerals?), will we also be waiting for the release of the latest DriveOS software? Lamenting the fact that Grandpa won’t come to terms with swapping his old Ford 5 for a Ford 10? Perhaps insurance companies will finally be willing to negotiate premiums because, hey, we’re not the ones driving anymore.
Get ready: autonomous vehicles (AVs) – self driving cars – are on the verge of breaking through in a big way, and it’s with a cheery note of optimism that we peer into our crystal ball for a glimpse into the future—the not so distant future, depending on who you’re asking. The Obama Administration recently offered up close to $4 billion over the next decade to fast-track projects related to the safety of AVs, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has decided that artificial intelligence (AI) constitutes “a driving entity,” meaning drivers will no longer need to be living and breathing in order to operate a vehicle.
To reference an old cliché: It’s not a matter of “if” AVs become part of mainstream consumerism, but “when.” So when it does happen, what will our roads and our world look like? There are a lot of technological, infrastructural, and legal decisions to be made, and we’re taking educated guesses at what could happen.
Insurance makes a move
AV advocates have long preached the benefits of eliminating human error altogether, reducing the number of auto crashes by significant margins. For insurers and drivers, that may mean a national, comprehensive no-fault regime is on the horizon. An AV study by the RAND Corporation suggests that the concept behind no-fault auto insurance laws might become an appealing alternative to tort-based laws for drivers and AV manufacturers. In other words: your own insurance company, would cover your damages in the event of an crash, regardless of who caused the accident. Tort-based law, by contrast, is based on principles seeking monetary compensation from the at-fault party’s insurance company.
What ultimately happens depends largely on which side makes the first move, and likely, who can get the most public support: the insurance industry, the technology and manufacturing industry, or legislators. All have varying interests in the future of AVs. Both the traditional tort model and no-fault have pros and cons in a world dominated by AVs.
The insurance industry depends on receiving premiums and thrives on holding onto as much money as possible, while paying out as little as possible in claims. National no-fault means an insurer of a driver is responsible whereas tort-based systems allow wiggle room for insurers and injured parties to go after the at-fault party. The RAND Corporation paper depicts a world with comprehensive no-fault and limited liability – up to and including immunity – for manufacturers who’s AVs are involved in a crash..
Technology and manufacturing companies want to be efficient and at the forefront of new, exciting technology like AVs. They should also want to manufacture safe AVs, but for a device as complex and dynamic as a self driving car, companies need to be invested in their products, set on frequent updates and advancements.
Of course, if AVs are as safe as anticipated, auto crashes, and thus injuries caused by crashes, will decrease. The result: less no-fault insurance claims, which insurers may be willing to support. But manufacturers and software developers are still liable in some cases – if the software or hardware of an AV is defective – so they’ll want something to protect them, too. They’ll turn to legislators, demanding immunity or other legal protections, so, they often claim, they can continue to innovate without fear of a massive lawsuit bankrupting them. But with a blanket immunity, the incentive to create, update, and take responsibility for AVs is arguably diminished.
As the sides play out, expect an expensive marketing campaign from insurers, who still rely on high premium-paying customers to make money. “Are you in good hands?” may become a much more literal slogan, for example.
Digital corruption sparks new driving policies
Several months ago, WIRED magazine decided to conduct an experiment with two hackers who were able to infiltrate the computer console of a Chrysler-manufactured Jeep. The trial ultimately forced one driver into a ditch on the side of the road. Though the stunt was planned, it caught the attention of lawmakers who were none-too-pleased with the prospect of real-life remote-control cars. Two Senators in particular set out to look closely at the way hacking presented challenges in a fully autonomous driving world.
That brings into question matters of digital corruption policies and the establishment of security practices to protect drivers from themselves (accidentally installing malware, for example), as well as laws to deter and punish outside forces like hackers. Tailoring these laws to a world in which AVs are prominent would be beneficial in the long run. Expect Congress to take a much more detailed look in the coming years as AVs become more prominent
The legal field starts retrofitting old laws to fit new ones
The days of Napster and P2P file sharing sent some copyright lawyers into frenzy. Attorneys were grappling with a new technological capability—mass downloads—and relying on outdated precedents to argue infringement. So much was happening in such a short time that it became easy to misunderstand what was really going on. As file sharing and copyright laws progressed, a new set of case law began to afford the technology its own body of law, giving lawyers a means by which to prosecute effectively. We may soon see the same thing happen when it comes to the rules of the road for AV.
Today’s question
We have to decide, as a community, how all the moving parts of the AV puzzle will fit together. Who will make the rules, and how will those rules be enforced? At this point, there may be things we don’t know that need changing in order to have AV operating seamlessly. Ford, for example, is working to create an on-demand ride service—like Uber—with AVs. Who would’ve conceived of such an idea just five short years ago and what would the consequences be, both legally and economically? The future is coming into full view. The bigger question is: can we keep pace?