• 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

Levinson and Stefani attorneys recognized by Super Lawyers

January 13, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Jay-Ken-Brett_Super-Lawyers
Levinson and Stefani is thrilled to announce that all three of its attorneys have been recognized by the rating service Super Lawyers in 2016. Ken has been selected to the 2016 Illinois Super Lawyers Top 100 list, his second appearance on the list, while Jay and Brett have been recognized as 2016 Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Stars. More information can be found in the release below. Congratulations, gentlemen!

LOGO_Final_Files_Gradient Color1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 13, 2016

CHICAGO — Founding partner Ken Levinson has been selected to the 2016 Illinois Super Lawyers Top 100, part of Super Lawyers’ annual listing. This marks Levinson’s second appearance on the Top 100 list; he has been listed an Illinois Super Lawyer every year since 2010. No more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers to receive this honor.

Levinson was recognized for his work on behalf of injury survivors and child abuse victims, including a record $43 million jury verdict for a child abuse victim. He has successfully handled hundreds of personal injury and wrongful death cases. Levinson is also the co-author of the newly released 2015-2016 edition of Litigating Major Automobile Injury and Death Cases, an ongoing series that helps plaintiff’s attorneys build strong cases for their clients. The two-volume set is published by AAJ Press/Thomson Reuters.

Additionally, Partner Jay Stefani and Associate Attorney Brett Manchel were honored as Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Stefani was previously named to the list in 2012, 2014 and 2015. This year marks Manchel’s first appearance on the Rising Stars list. Fewer than 2.5 percent of Illinois lawyers under the age of 40 are selected Rising Stars.

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Super Lawyers Magazine features the list and profiles of selected attorneys and is distributed to attorneys in the state or region and the ABA-accredited law school libraries. Super Lawyers is also published as a special section in leading city and regional magazines across the country.

In the United States, Super Lawyers Magazine is published in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reaching more than 13 million readers.

Founded in 2014, Levinson and Stefani is a Chicago-based law firm offering client-first legal representation. Founded by Ken Levinson and Jay Stefani, the firm focuses on truck, auto and bus-related accidents, as well as child injury cases.

Download a PDF version by clicking here

Founding Partner Ken Levinson Authors Latest Edition of ‘Litigating Major Automobile Injury Cases’

January 12, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Ken_Litigating-Major-Automobile-Injury-Cases
Ken has co-authored the 2015-2016 edition of Litigating Major Automobile Injury and Death Cases, the newest volume of the reference litigation series published by AAJ Press/Thomson Reuters. The series is designed to help plaintiff’s attorneys build strong cases for their clients by highlighting real-life case studies related to Major Auto Injury and Death.

Read the complete release below.

LOGO_Final_Files_Gradient Color1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2016

PARTNER KEN LEVINSON AUTHORS LATEST EDITION OF LITIGATING MAJOR AUTOMOBILE INJURY AND DEATH CASES

CHICAGO — Levinson and Stefani founding partner Ken Levinson has co-authored the 2015-2016 edition of Litigating Major Automobile Injury and Death Cases, the newest volume of the reference litigation series published by AAJ Press/Thomson Reuters.

Part of an ongoing series, Litigating Major Automobile Injury and Death Cases is designed to help plaintiff’s attorneys build strong cases for their clients by highlighting real-life case studies related to Major Auto Injury and Death. The series features written discovery, depositions, medical and other expert witness testimony, and aspects of automobile jury trials, among dozens of other topics. The latest edition includes two high-profile cases that have dominated headlines in 2015, including:

  • The legal requirements of air bag installation and a recent case involving Takata airbag inflators, which, in some instances, ignited with explosive force, causing metal shards to spray across the vehicle. Reports showed that eight people have been killed and at least 160 have been injured by exploding Takata air bags with more than 70 proposed class action lawsuits and dozens more cases filed in state courts.
  • Ignition switch litigation due to negligent practices, most notably a recall of 10 million motor vehicles manufactured by General Motors that resulted in 114 deaths and 229 injuries. The overview contained here is intended to provide a basic understanding of the problems with the GM ignitions switches and GM’s knowledge of them, and to summarize the current state of litigation.

The two-volume series is co-authored by Thomas D’Amore, Karen Koehler, and Michael D. Freeman.

About Ken Levinson
Ken Levinson is a passionate advocate for accident survivors and child safety. He has been practicing law in Illinois for more than 20 years, during which time he was appointed an Assistant Illinois Attorney General before entering private practice. He was named one of the “40 Lawyers under 40 to Watch” in Illinois in 2002 by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company and was listed by Illinois Super Lawyers magazine as one of the top attorneys in Illinois between 2010–2016; he was listed in the Illinois Super Lawyers Top 100 in 2012 and 2016.

Levinson frequently speaks on child safety issues to parent and community groups. In addition, he teaches other lawyers how to better represent injured clients through nationwide speaking engagements. Levinson received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Hobart College in 1989 and his Juris Doctor in 1992 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

About Levinson and Stefani
Founded in 2014, Levinson and Stefani is a Chicago-based law firm offering client-first legal representation. Founded by Ken Levinson and Jay Stefani, the firm focuses on truck, auto and bus-related accidents, as well as child injury cases.

Download a PDF version by clicking here

Associate Attorney Brett Manchel featured in ‘Lawyerist’

January 7, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Brett_Lawerist
Earlier today, the online magazine Lawyerist put together a great list of ways that firms can maximize time by delegating tasks to their legal assistants or third-party services.

Writer Cari Twitchell referenced several options, with commentary from practicing lawyers about the benefits of the services they use. Levinson and Stefani Associate Attorney Brett Manchel was asked for his perspective, discussing how we use a third-party call service to take on the heavy lifting, and how it benefits our cases and clients.

From the article:

Phone Calls

“Disrupting work to answer the phone leaves you wondering where you left off and leaves the caller feeling like you are uninterested or frustrated.

You deserve focused time to work. Your callers deserve a good experience. Give everyone the experience they deserve by outsourcing your phone calls to a virtual receptionist service.

Brett Manchel, associate attorney with Levinson and Stefani, finds great value in having someone else answer the phones. ‘I love being the go-to contact for our current and potential clients. But in a small firm, delegation is key. I’ve got to manage my time so I can focus on strategizing and moving cases forward. Having someone there to answer phone calls—providing assistance to the caller or taking a message—allows me to work more efficiently while giving clients the attention they deserve.’”

Thanks, Brett, for sharing your thoughts.

Ken makes guest appearance at Florida Justice Association seminar

December 28, 2015 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Levinson-Stefani-8436-Ken_Wht-Web

Earlier this month, Ken was invited to speak as a guest faculty member for the Hell on the Highways: Motorcycles, Trucks and Roads Seminar, presented by the Florida Justice Association.

The three-day conference provided hands-on, practical experience on litigation practices for lawyers, as told by nationally renowned trucking accident lawyers from around the country. Ken and his fellow faculty members led sessions by noting examples and successful litigation methods, based on previously tried cases and their experiences in the field.

Ken spoke on the benefits of utilizing focus groups as a way to prove liability and damages in trucking cases. During the session, Ken provided insight on how to select members of focus groups and how to ask the right questions to improve the odds of a winning a case.

Throughout his career, Ken has organized and led focus groups for high-profile cases involving auto and trucking accidents. While managing his own case load, Ken travels the country working with firms to gather important information to formulate strategies before going to trial.

The Florida Justice Association, formerly the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers (AFTL), is dedicated to strengthening and upholding Florida’s civil justice system and protecting the rights of Florida’s citizens and consumers. FJA works in the legislative, political and public arenas to ensure that Floridians know and understand the importance of their rights to justice and to make certain that these rights, which are at the very core of what it means to be American, are safeguarded and protected.

Prescriptive easements: Won’t you be my neighbor?

December 1, 2015 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

National Financial, LP v. Pobuda, 2014 IL 116717

Property ownership is one of the oldest and most valued rights we enjoy. That’s why it’s also one of the most protected rights—protection strong enough to trump the 1st Amendment at times. Still, the use and enjoyment of land is not exclusively limited to the landowner. Often, people seek permission to use land that is owned by someone else. But sometimes, land is utilized without express permission. In Illinois if there is a non-permissive use land for a 20-year period, and that use is adverse, uninterrupted, exclusive, continuous and under a claim of right, the user can claim something called a “prescriptive easement.”

Prescriptive easements can come about through simple situations. For example, a person crosses a portion of your land without your permission every weekday on his/her way to and from work. After 21 years, you put up a fence that says “no trespassing,” yet said person continues to cross. Unfortunately, by law, you acquiesced to that person’s use of the land and, at the 20th year, that person now has a right to use what they have enjoyed uninterrupted for 21 years. It is a limited right; the person cannot exclude the landowner or anyone else, but can enjoy that particular use. It even applies should you decide to purchase a parcel of land that already contains a prescriptive easement.

Nationwide Financial purchased a parcel of land and found that the owners of the next parcel overused the northwest corner as a driveway. Both parcels would be landlocked absent a gravel road easement. Michael and Laura Pobuda bought their home 18 years prior to Nationwide’s purchase and 21 years prior to Nationwide’s suit. The landowner prior to the Pobudas lived for 15 years on the same property and used the northwest corner of present-day Nationwide’s land. The Pobudas and previous landowners never sought permission for the use of the northwest corner. Nationwide sought a judgment from the court that the Pobudas’ use of its land represents an unlawful trespass. The Pobudas asserted that they had a prescriptive easement; Nationwide disagreed.

Both the circuit court and the appellate court agreed with Nationwide, focusing on the exclusivity element. They characterize exclusive as depriving the owner of all use and found that the Pobudas did not fulfill that requirement. Therefore their claim failed. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed and found that exclusive use does not need to deprive the owner of use, but only that the right of the person asserting the easement does not depend upon a like right in others. In other words, the Pobudas use of the land was not subject to permission or other rights.

Nationwide also argued that the use was not adverse but, rather, a neighborly courtesy extended from one the previous owners, long ago. While the theory is sound, the neighborly courtesy is a form of permission which would defeat an adverse claim, the facts do not support that theory in this case. ILSC found that the origin of the right of way lacked evidence to suggest it was permissive, in-fact, the origin of the right of way is unknown. The Court concluded that as a matter of law the Pobudas satisfied the elements of exclusivity and adversity necessary to establish a prescriptive easement claim. 

Click here to read the full case note

Step on the cracks and you’ll break more than your back

December 1, 2015 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998

As discussed in a previous post, a landowner must protect those people present on the landowner’s land from dangerous conditions on the land. However, when a dangerous condition is open and obvious, the landowner can assume that a reasonably prudent person would, on his or her own accord, take the proper precautions to avoid the danger. But, just because a danger is open and obvious does not mean that someone injured by it is without any legal recourse. There is a balancing test to determine whether the landowner owed a duty to the invitee despite the openness and obviousness of the dangerous condition.

The four factors are:

  1. Foreseeability;
  2. Likelihood of the injury;
  3. The burden on the land owner in guarding against the injury; and
  4. The consequence of placing that burden on the land owner.

When a court finds that the danger was open and obvious, the weight of the first two factors tip in the landowner’s favor. With a danger that is not open and obvious the inverse in true. Because the court applies a balancing test in these types of cases, depending on the circumstances, one factor could be given much more weight than another.

In other words, an open and obvious danger could still leave a landowner liable if she can reasonably anticipate an invitee will get distracted, causing the invitee to not discover, forget about, or fail to protect herself from the obvious danger. This is known as the distraction exception to the open and obvious rule. Enter, Virginia Bruns, as she was walking to her eye appointment in Centralia, Illinois, just as she did nine times in the three months. This time, though, she stubbed her toe on an uneven slab of sidewalk, causing her to fall and injure herself.

This particular sidewalk has a history of being defective.  The defect gradually developed due to the roots of a nearby tree. The eye clinic, in two instances, contacted the city to have the tree removed, even offering to do it themselves. The city refused because of the 100 year old tree’s historical significance. On the second occasion, the eye clinic called because someone tripped and fell on the sidewalk. Virginia testified that she noticed the defect during her preceding visits.

She sued the City of Centralia alleging that Centralia should have reasonably foreseen that someone would become distracted and fail to protect herself from the dangerous condition. The distraction Virginia was asserting involved her looking at the door of her destination. The Circuit court ruled that the sidewalk defect was open and obvious and rejected Virginia’s distraction argument. Virginia’s argument, the circuit court opined, leads to an expansion of negligence law that would provide a universal exception to the entire open and obvious doctrine because anybody could then claim they were distracted by anything at all.

Virginia appealed, the appellate court found that it was certainly foreseeable that one might have their attention focused on their destination rather than on the sidewalk immediately ahead. Further, that Centralia had a duty to remedy the defect in a reasonable time frame but determining breach is a question of fact. Centralia appealed to Illinois Supreme Court, who reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court.

The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the mere fact of looking elsewhere does not constitute a distraction because a landowner cannot anticipate and protect against every single event that may occur in the distracted minds of his invitees. That conclusion was supported by a 2005 appellate decision and the Second Restatement of Torts, specifically noting that being preoccupied with one’s own thoughts is not a valid distraction to qualify as an exception. Examples when the distraction exception applies, as discussed by the Court are: using the only exit brought the invitee into contact with a dangerous condition; the invitee was given a task that directed her into the area with the dangerous condition; and the invitee was looking up in order to avoid falling debris while traversing the dangerous condition. These are very limited circumstances, indeed.

After that conclusion the Court considered the second two factors. The Court assumed that the burden was not great on Centralia to remedy sidewalk defects or otherwise protect pedestrians. Great weight was placed on the consequence factor, finding that the imposition of this burden would extend to the entirety of Centralia’s sidewalks. A consequence that is just not justified by the nature of this open and obvious defect. In other words, while Centralia could easily maintain and protect the city’s sidewalks, it does not give grounds to the Court to hold them liable for every instance of idle minded pedestrians falling on their defective sidewalks because it would be easier or more efficient for the pedestrian to just avoid the loss.

Remember, each case is unique. Your slip and fall is not necessarily exactly like someone else’s – and neither are your distractions. This area of the law is very sensitive to facts, so speak with an experienced attorney who can help you determine if you have a legal claim for injuries.

Click here to read the full case note

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 121
  • Page 122
  • Page 123
  • Page 124
  • Page 125
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 138
  • Go to Next Page »

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers in Chicago / Attorney Advertising