• 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

Blog

Will new security cameras slow car accidents near Wrigley?

May 24, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Photo: Wikimedia Commons, Towpilot

The new upgrade could have long-term benefits for the future of Lakeview and crash victims

The Chicago Cubs plan to donate $1 million to install new surveillance around Wrigley Field, a grant that doubles the number of security cameras in Lakeview, according to DNAInfo.

The grant will be presented before the city’s budget committee today, and we’re wondering: What does that mean for one of summer’s busiest and most congested neighborhoods?

The upgrade calls for 30 new cameras to be placed on city-owned light poles along Belmont, Addison, Irving Park Rd., and Lake Shore Drive. Others will be installed on streets farther from the ballpark but within the span of traffic, including west of Western Avenue and extending as far back as the Kennedy Expressway.

Apart from the obvious security upgrade, the cameras could mean more prosecutions for offenders of car crashes, which have been sporadic but frequent over the last few years. Earlier this month, a man was carjacked at gunpoint, leading to a crash on the 3100 block of North Cambridge Avenue; in July of last year, seven people were hospitalized after a Dodge Caravan crashed into a police cruiser while making a left turn from Addison onto Clark St.; and as far back as 2012, two people were hurt when a motorcycle rammed a Mercedes at the corner of Addison and Magnolia.

It’s fair to say that the new cameras won’t explicitly deter or prevent car accidents from occurring around Wrigley in the short-term. But it does open up the possibility that multiple streets will be evaluated in the coming months and years, based on footage of driving patterns, cycling and pedestrian behavior, and the foot-traffic leading up to game days.

It also opens up the possibility for crash victims to definitively collect on impending lawsuits, aided by the use of crash footage, which is overseen by the Office of Emergency Management and Communications, meaning it’s theoretically available via a public records request (something that an experienced injury attorney should be requesting, as Jay recently spoke about during a trip to the New Jersey Association for Justice Boardwalk Seminar last month). And if the city is truly dedicated to its Vision Zero plan, the above-mentioned traffic studies could influence the future landscape of Lakeview, meaning less crashes.

The Cubs have seen a significant jump in attendance and interest since winning the World Series last fall. Despite a relative slow start, the Cubs faithful continue to turn out in droves. They practically inhabit the roads. It’s nice knowing a fresh batch of new cameras have the potential to alleviate some of those fears now and into the future.

Chicago, consider the FORS model

May 23, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Is an accreditation system the answer to the city’s side guard problem?

With historically high levels of gun violence and the ostensibly insurmountable pension debacle, the city of Chicago hasn’t had much to brag about over the last couple years, but this past fall Bicycling magazine decided to throw us a bone.

In September Chicago was selected as the most bike-friendly city in the country, placing ahead of stalwart contenders like New York, Boston, and San Francisco. The article cited a growing infrastructure: more designated bike lanes, improved roads, and the promotion of the city’s ride-share program known as Divvy.

But shortly after Bicycling ranked us number one, the city saw an alarming climb in the number of bike-related fatalities at the hands of large trucks. Also a several months ago: a woman was riding downtown when she was abruptly pulled under a large truck, leaving her broken body in its wake. The crash prompted a response from Chicago Reader reporter and Streetsblog editor John Greenfield, who chronicled a series of crashes in and around traffic-heavy areas that resulted in the untimely deaths of four young cyclists.

Greenfield happened to write about one issue I deal with extensively as a member of the Trucking Litigation Group’s Side Underride Guard Task Force: the implementation of protective side guards—long metal rods or panels that prevent riders and pedestrians from falling prey to deadly “right-hook” turns—and how Chicago’s City Council might respond.

The response so far? Tame, at best.

There were encouraging signs that might change. In 2016, Chicago announced it would participate in Vison Zero, the transportation safety initiative developed in Sweden in 1994, which, for Chicago’s purposes, hopes to eliminate all traffic-related fatalities by the year 2026. Chicago enacted a pilot program to test the effectiveness of side guards on city-owned trucks, yet its commitment remains tepid. The best the city has come up with, according Streetsblog, is a statement promising to work with “private industry to create recommendations for safety equipment, such as convex mirrors and truck side guards,” in order to prevent tragedies from happening in the future. Meanwhile, proactive cities like New York and Boston have enacted legislation mandating side guards for all city-contracted trucks.

For a major city with a large population of cyclists, the promise of tomorrow seems inadequate for the problems we face today.

Why so complicated?

Relatively speaking, side guards are not cheap. Installing side guards could cost a trucking company upwards of $1,000-$2,000, and, sadly, many fleets view paying out for speculative lawsuits as the cheaper gamble. And in case you haven’t heard, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago are still dancing around a budget catastrophe, so an expenditure like mandatory side guards on city-owned fleets is bound to be scrutinized. We may, however, look to Europe for one example of an incentive program that might encourage legislators, drivers, and businesses to do more when it comes to things like side guards.

The FORS factor

Around 2008, the Transport for London took an interest in the number of cycling and pedestrian deaths associated with large trucks and decided that something needed to change. That led to a voluntary system called FORS (Fleet Operation Recognition Scheme), a European Union-wide accreditation program that promotes industry-wide best practices and, more importantly, provides incentives for companies that choose safety over convenience. For every best-practice, including the implementation of side guards, participants earn a set of ranks, and much like the LEED accreditation in the United States, the FORS badge stands out as a symbol of commitment and integrity.

“A major reason for the scheme’s successful uptake in London has undoubtedly been client driven, with businesses now using FORS in contracts with their supply chain,” according to a FORS information page. “A growing number of companies require fleet operators to demonstrate a commitment to sustainable fleet activities in order to tender for work with them.”

The stats from FORS are noteworthy. In 2015, FORS-designated Silver and Gold companies reduced total collision by 17 percent and minor injury collisions by 34.5 percent over 2014, according to statistics published by the group. More than 50 percent of FORS-accredited drivers are less likely to be involved in driving offenses related to hours of service. On top of it, trucking companies like D&P Hauling and ESG continue to publicize FORS accreditation updates and upgrades, much like a company like Amazon touts best-selling books on its website. When you consider that any good business partly relies on its reputation, FORS seems like a good option, even for skeptics.

In my home state, the Illinois Department of Transportation already anticipates that over the next year traffic deaths will rise to its highest levels since 2014, a consequence of more drivers on the road, more distractions, and less spending on crash prevention.

A significant percentage of those fatalities are likely to be commercial vehicle-related crashes, and in those cases, the legal implications far exceed any amount that it might cost for something as practical as side guards. It seems logical to reward those people and companies—whether it’s an accreditation badge or some kind of recognition—who take the matter seriously.

Why the Illinois Policy Institute is wrong about workers’ comp costs

May 22, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Trial lawyers aren’t the cause of the state’s manufacturing woes

There’s a myth that trial lawyers are destroying the infrastructure of Illinois because of their greedy, nefarious ways. Once again, that myth rears its ugly head.

On Friday, we came across an article with this headline: Political Cowardice on Workers’ Compensation is Destroying Blue-Collar Jobs. In it, Austin Berg, senior writer for the provocative think-tank Illinois Policy Institute, argues that Illinois’ workers’ comp laws are woefully inefficient and enacted strictly for the purposes of the “powerful trial lawyer lobby” to get rich off local businesses, which in turn stagnates the state’s manufacturing industry.

“The real problem with the system,” according to Berg, “is that the interests of workers and businesses take a back seat to those of trial lawyers and doctors who profit off the system.”

Berg goes on to cite the “flawed” math of trial attorneys, who he says consistently use the insurance industry as a scapegoat for their profiteering ways. He bases part of his logic on new findings from the 2016 Workers’ Compensation Insurance Report from the Department of Insurance, along with four cost drivers that supposedly make state laws so inadequate:

No. 1: The system is a cash cow for trial lawyers

Illinois’ wage replacement rates, which govern the size of settlements, are some of the highest in the nation. Lawyers profit both from the size of those settlements and the generous formula that calculates their share of the prize.

No. 2: Medical benefits are way too expensive

Most states tie their medical fees under workers’ compensation to Medicare. But in Illinois, special interests set prices. As a result, major surgery in Illinois is three times more expensive than the same surgeries under Medicare. Pain management injections are twice as expensive. This is way out of line with other states.

No. 3: Doctors have a financial incentive to overprescribe dangerous drugs 

Illinois allows doctors to not only prescribe painkillers out of their offices, but to sell them directly to injured workers at big markups. When doctors are allowed to do this, they prescribe three times as many opioids as they would otherwise. And workers are off the job for 85 percent longer. This drives up the cost of workers’ compensation insurance. It’s also a major worker health issue.

No. 4: Many workers have a financial incentive to stay off work

There are some workers’ compensation cases in which Illinois workers can make more money off the job than on the job. That gives a strong incentive to play up an injury in the first place, and then extend it as long as possible.

But Berg’s argument is odd when you consider that the very insurance report he mentions points to a startling upswing in workers’ compensation profits, practically cementing what trial lawyers have been saying all along: that insurance companies are, in fact, making money off the small businesses they’re supposedly entrusted to protect.

As the Department of Insurance pointed out in its report, workers’ comp insurers saw profits rise by 22 points between 2010 and 2014—from negative 11 percent to a positive 11 percent. The profit from within Illinois jumped by 1.7 percent between 2013 to 2014, compared to just 1.5 percent nationwide during the same stretch of time. To quote the report: “the workers’ compensation market profit within Illinois has demonstrated a significant increase since 2010, virtually matching the countrywide profit in 2013 and 2014.”

In October of 2016, the National Academy of Social Insurance noted that between 2010 and 2014, total workers’ compensation benefits paid per $100 of covered wages actually decreased by $0.23, while employer costs per $100 of covered wages dropped by $0.06 in Illinois, making it the second most profitable line of insurance after auto insurance.

Setting aside the rising bottom lines of insurance providers, we should also look at the workers’ comp system more broadly. Back in 2015, the Washington Post went out of its way to point out statistics from the Department of Labor showing that the country’s legal structure was broken—not with respect to lawyers but the manner in which injury victims are subsequently being driven into poverty for lack of fair compensation. Illinois may be among the country’s leading states paying out for claims, but it’s hardly for unjustified reasons.

Furthermore, from what we can tell, Berg neither cites nor quotes a single trial attorney, medical provider, or victim of a workers’ comp-related case that he so adamantly believes is the root of all that is bad, making his argument ostensibly one-sided and skewed to match a warped degree of the facts.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases going on right now in which state laws work contrary to the needs of those who have suffered life-long, debilitating injuries while simply doing their job.

The state of Illinois certainly has economic and financial problems. Manufacturing is one of them. But for Berg to make such broad characterizations about lawyers, doctors, and injury victims without telling the whole story is its own kind of abuse.

Why is my car safer than a 30-ton tractor trailer?

May 19, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

It’s time to demand the same safety standards found in most conventional vehicles

One thing’s indisputable: today’s technology is highly sophisticated and, in many ways, a necessity for most of the world.

When my wife and I bought our last car, we accounted for the essentials: seat belts, airbags (front, side, etc.), standard daytime running lights, and antilock brakes. Then it got interesting. We looked closely at the back-up camera, the blind spot detection system, the rear and forward collision warning systems, adaptive cruise control, and lane departure warnings—advanced features that have been fine-tuned over the last several decades with the explicit purpose of keeping people safe.

Which begs the question: Why are my car, other cars, crossovers, and SUVs adhering to and employing better safety standards than 30-ton tractor trailers?

According to the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, which based its findings on roughly 120,000 large truck crashes, 55 percent of truck accidents were initiated by the truck. Even more alarming: 87 percent of those crashes were the result of carelessness—fatigue, poor driving, speeding, tailgating, etc. And more still: Over 22 percent of truck crashes occurred when the truck rear-ended another vehicle; 32 percent happened when the truck drifted from one lane to another lane or off the road entirely.

These types of crashes are significantly more preventable if we demand the same types of advances found in most conventional cars.

Take rear back up cameras, for example. A 2010 study by the NHTSA found that 228 deaths and 17,000 injuries resulted from cars backing into people. As alarming as that reads, consider that nearly 44 percent of those crashes involved kids under the age of 5, and that a pickup truck or an SUV was four times more likely than a car to kill someone. Thing is, rear-end backup cameras will be required for all new cars beginning May 2018. To date, no such standard is in the works for commercial trucks.

The theme here: the bigger the vehicle, the more dangerous the outcome. If a pickup truck with a rearview mirror is four times deadlier than a car, imagine how the numbers correlate to a tractor-trailer. If you’ve ever sat in the cab of a semi-truck, you know that blind spots are extensive. You know that large trucks don’t have rear-view mirrors. You know that side mirrors have no practical use. In fact, the trucking acronym for maneuvering in reverse is called G.O.A.L., which stands for “Get Out And Look.” (In an ideal situation, the driver uses a spotter to direct them properly.) Installing a back-up camera could go a long way to reducing those stresses and preventing unnecessary accidents.

This isn’t an issue of truck companies coming up with science-fiction-level tech to solve a problem. This isn’t even an issue of calculating the cost-benefit analysis. Active/adaptive cruise control for trucks (a system that adjusts a truck’s speed based on the vehicle in front of it) runs as low as $2,100. It’s not free, but as someone who’s represented families who have lost loved ones because a truck rear-ended a car, I can assure you it’s significantly less than what a truck company ends up paying for a lawsuit. Simply put, it’s a poor business decision for the trucking industry to ignore better safety practices for the sake of saving a few bucks.

The saddest part about this may be the lack of awareness. Given the prevalence of driving safety technology, it would likely surprise most people to learn that multi-million-dollar trucking companies, with fleets of trucks covering millions of miles of road each year, don’t utilize existing technology to prevent injuries and fatalities. Isn’t it time they should?

This house bill forces local drivers to keep the headlights on

May 18, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

HB 2448, ladies and gentelmen

Here’s something you may not know. The Illinois state legislature is considering a bill that would require Illinois drivers to keep their headlights turned on all the time, even in broad daylight.

Sponsored by Rep. Robert Pritchard (R-Hinckley), House Bill 2448 was narrowly approved 5-4 by the Illinois Transportation Committee back in March. It’s now in the hands of the full House, which has amended the bill twice to date.

“This is an issue where too many people are already violating the law that says you’re supposed to have your headlights on when visibility is limited,” Pritchard told the State Journal-Register shortly after the ITC vote. “People are violating that. You can see that every day when you’re driving on the open road. So that was the genesis for which I bring forward this idea, that if you are visible, other people can avoid you.”

Here’s the bill’s original synopsis:

Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that every motor vehicle of the first division or motor vehicle of the second division weighing no more than 8,000 pounds shall at all times exhibit: (1) daytime running lights; or (2) at least 2 lighted head lamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, showing white lights, including those emitted by high intensity discharge lamps or lights of a yellow or amber tint. Provides that a violation of the provision is a business offense punishable by a fine of $100. Defines “daytime running lights.”

Good idea or bad idea?

On its face, the proposal seems like a proactive safety measure, despite scrutiny from other House members, including Chicago Rep. Marcus Evans Jr. who says keeping the lights on would be costly for drivers, citing more dead batteries and a lot more stranded vehicles. And that’s not counting a fine that reaches $100 for not obeying the law.

 Broadly, however, HB 2448 is likely to fortify an already staunch law that forces all drivers to turn their headlights on during inclement weather or at the first sign of dusk. The notion that drivers will lose money or face the prospect of a dead battery shouldn’t outweigh the benefits, as Pritchard made clear to the Register.

“Motorcycles are required to have a headlight on all the time for visibility reasons, and a car is no different,” Pritchard said. “So let’s look at in terms of the other person, rather than necessarily you, your car and your battery. It’s so that you don’t get hit and maybe have something a lot worse than a burned-out headlight.”

Will Obama’s presidential center really cause ‘carmaggedon’?

May 17, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

 

We predict easy riding, despite the concerns

Something worth doing is worth doing right.

If the prospect of a new, modern development project promises to A) add value to the surrounding community, B) keep people engaged with said community, and C) allow people the freedom to wander the campus without getting hit by a car, then it’s most definitely worth doing right.

Last week, former president Barack Obama ventured to Jackson Park to unveil plans for his much-anticipated presidential center. Among those plans was this: a somewhat controversial revamp of Cornell Drive, located on the east side of what is soon to be Chicago’s next big attraction. The purpose of the revamp, according to Obama, is to create more green space and a safer, more people-friendly environment.

The proposal would include banning all cars from Cornell Drive between 60th and 67th streets, allowing Obama and his team to add five acres of parkland for a pedestrian walkway and a children’s play area.

“You can’t have little kids playing right next to the road,” Obama reportedly said at the meeting. “You can’t have sledding into the road.”

You also can’t stop other people from voicing their concerns.

Initial plans for the presidential center has drawn criticism from 5th Ward Alderman Leslie Hairston, who opposed the idea of shutting down Cornell. She called it a surefire way to ensure a presumably long slog of slow, congested traffic, resulting from drivers who consistently use it as a shortcut from Lake Shore Drive’s 57th Street exit to the intersection of 67th and Stony Island Avenue, which then funnels to the Chicago Skyway.

Following the unveiling, the Tribune also had thoughts. On Monday, the paper’s editorial board cited a traffic study from 2014, stating that the daily vehicle count on Cornell was somewhere in the range of 19,300 annually. They labeled those numbers a proverbial bump in the road for the forthcoming center and closed its editorial by saying, “It’s up to Obama and his team, in collaboration with state and local officials, to find an answer better than This’ll just take you an extra minute or three. The South Side wants the library, but its residents also want to keep their work commutes and other car trips tolerable.”

Whatever the concerns, the traffic patterns of the city’s South Side resulting from a redesign of Cornell Drive are likely to be short-term problems for long-term benefits. But don’t take our word for it.

At the meeting earlier this month, Obama pointed out that the length of any additional commute stemming from the new presidential center would be minutes not hours, highlighting a preliminary study by the Illinois and the Chicago departments of transportation, both of which concluded that a revamp of Cornell Drive would add one to three minutes of commute time, at most.

The Illinois Department of Transportation also plans to conduct further studies to ensure commute times remain reasonable. And taking it a step further, Louise Murray, president of the Jackson Park Advisory council, has gone on record saying that she’s wanted to close the road for six years because of how dangerous it is, noting that two children have been hurt crossing the road in the last five years.

Even Hairston came around to the idea, telling DNAInfo “I liked what I saw,” referencing Obama’s unveiling.

And for all its apprehensions, the Tribune editorial noted that the motivation for closing the drive was “sound,” not least because the new presidential center is expected to draw several thousands of people to the Jackson Park location each year, meaning the presidential center needs to be a safe, insulated campus from nearby traffic.

Is the city willing to complicate plans for protected park land for the sake of an admittedly dangerous six-lane road?

Streetsblog proposed this alternative solution when the rumblings of a renovation began to spread back in February: “If we pedestrianize Cornell, a mostly six-lane, highway-like road slicing through one of Chicago’s treasured natural areas, drivers on LSD could instead get off at 57th and go west to Stony Island, or else take the drive all the way to its southern terminus near 67th, and then take that street to Stony.”

Then there’s this thorough rebuttal to the Tribune’s editorial, also from Streetsblog, which may be the most definitive point of them all: “But there’s also the phenomenon of traffic evaporation. When driving becomes a little less convenient, people choose to use different travel modes, or opt not to make unnecessary car trips. That’s why, despite gloomy predictions from the media, the Loop never grinds to a halt when multiple downtown streets are closed for construction projects. Instead, more people choose to leave their cars at home.”

Carmaggedon? That’s likely blowing things out of proportion.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 103
  • Page 104
  • Page 105
  • Page 106
  • Page 107
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 128
  • Go to Next Page »

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers in Chicago / Attorney Advertising