Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers

(312) 376-3812

Flaws Found in Driver Assist Systems

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)

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

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.

Safety on the Road in the Age of Autonomous Vehicles

Driverless electric car without driver on a city street. Autonomous self driving mode. Head-up display.

In recent years, driverless cars have become a growing phenomenon. From Tesla’s semi-autonomous Autopilot to Uber’s self-driving vehicles, the introduction of cars that are able to control themselves without the aid of a physical person has significantly changed what it means to be a driver on the road. Driverless cars have been an incredible step forward in innovation, but, as it often happens with change, there are always issues brought to light as well.

Recently, there was a Chicago Tribune article about a Tesla in Autopilot mode that sped up before crashing into a stopped firetruck. The accident caused injuries to two people, the driver of the Tesla and the driver of the firetruck. Police suggested that the Tesla had most likely been following another vehicle, dropping its speed to 55 mph to match the leading vehicle, which probably then changed lanes, resulting in the Tesla automatically speeding up to its original preset speed of 60 mph without registering the cars that were stopped ahead and crashing into the firetruck.

According to the police report, the driver of the Tesla informed the police that she had been driving under the impression that the Tesla’s automatic emergency braking system would be able to detect the traffic and stop before it hit another vehicle. The driver had owned the car for two years and used the semi-autonomous Autopilot feature on all types of roadways, including the Utah highway she had crashed on. The police said that the car data showed that the driver of the Tesla had not touched the steering wheel for 80 seconds before the crash because she had been looking for her phone and comparing different routes to her destination. When asked about the accident, Tesla pointed out that “drivers are continually reminded to keep their hands on the wheel and maintain control of their vehicle at all times while using the Autopilot system.”

In another accident concerning Uber and its self-driving vehicles, a woman was hit by one of the robotic vehicles while she was crossing a darkened street in Arizona, resulting in her being killed. This was the first death that had involved a fully autonomous vehicle, raising concerns about the safety of computer-controlled cars that are being built by Uber and several other companies. Although it is considered a fully autonomous vehicle, Uber hires safety drivers to try and prevent any accidents such as the one that occurred in Arizona. From a video released by Tempe police, it is shown that the Uber driver was repeatedly looking down before hitting the woman and neither the car’s system nor the driver managed to stop the Uber in time. The safety driver is supposed to take control of the car when its sensors and algorithms are unable to register what the circumstances are.

These types of accidents have led to a growing concern as to where to draw the line when it comes to just how much control to give driverless cars. In the two incidents described above, it is clear that the drivers were a good deal at fault, but they also highlight increased worry that comes with more and more driverless cars being put on the road. Even a slight flaw in those programs or some unforeseeable circumstances could have a severe, potentially life-threatening impact on a person. It’s imperative that drivers, even those sitting behind the wheel of a driverless car, should always err on the side of caution and be safe. Assuming that the car, without a driver’s aid, can control itself and adjust to any situation is a risk not worth taking.

Chicago Porch Fall Verdict Stands: Walstad v. Klink

Verdict word cloud concept on grey background

Case Summary: Walstad v. Klink

$2.5M verdict in porch case stands; case timely filed

In the case of Walstad v. Klink, a woman fell off the rear porch of an apartment building, resulting in her being paralyzed from the waist down. She had fallen through the yellow tape that the defendant had put up to act as a handrail.

On May 21, 2018, the state appeals court upheld the $2.5 million jury verdict awarded to the plaintiff rejecting the defendant’s argument that the lawsuit against the estate of her now-deceased husband had been untimely filed.

The plaintiff had originally filed a personal injury and premises liability complaint against the original defendant, the owner of the apartment building, and against the City of Chicago. In 2006, the original defendant’s wife, Klink, was added as a defendant by amendment. The City of Chicago filed a motion for summary judgment that was eventually granted by the trial court, dismissing the city as a defendant. While the dismissal was on interlocutory appeal causing the case to be stayed, both the original plaintiff and original defendant passed away. The plaintiff’s mother took over the lawsuit for her daughter but did not add the defendant’s estate as a party until 2013.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had taken too long to name the estate as a party in her third amended complaint, violating 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1), (2), and (5). The 1st District Appellate Court found that the Plaintiff’s third amended complaint had been timely filed because the defendant had known that a claim would have been brought against her husband’s estate and had notice of the claim. The court reasoned that the defendant’s argument went against 735 ILCS 5/2-616(d), which allows parties to add defendants in a lawsuit even when it would normally be time-barred if certain conditions were met. The court decided that in this case, these conditions had been satisfied.

The case had gone to trial in 2016 after being stayed for years due to the interlocutory appeal. During that time, along with the passing of both the original plaintiff and original defendant, the defendant’s wife filed for bankruptcy in 2015 before the jury issued a verdict in December 2016. Because of Klink’s declaration of bankruptcy, no insurance on the building, and the estate of the original defendant having no assets, the attorneys for both parties said that the plaintiff’s estate would collect nothing from the defendant’s and there ended up being no verdict to collect.

Recent Posts