Negligence Archives - Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers

The short answer is the person who is responsible for a crash generally pays for medical bills related to the incident. However, the at-fault driver will pay for the medical bills usually as part of a lump-sum payment that is included in the entire settlement or verdict amount. In other words, a victim of a car crash is responsible for making sure his or her bills are paid or that the doctors, hospitals, or clinics providing treatment for their injuries resulting from the crash are willing to wait until their legal case is resolved to get paid.

What If I Don’t Have Health Insurance?

Most auto insurance policies include medical payment coverage for medical bills incurred as a result of a car crash, but the limits are usually low, and it may only cover a relatively small amount of bills. Once that coverage is exhausted, you can request that a doctor or treatment facility place a lien on an outstanding bill. This means that the doctor or medical office agrees to wait to get paid until the legal matter is concluded and funds are recovered from the negligent driver. However, medical offices typically do not agree to provide treatment on a lien basis unless their patient is represented by an attorney.

What If The Other Side Blames Me For The Crash?

Damages in injury cases in Illinois are apportioned based on fault, unless the person filing the claim is more than 50% at fault. Put another way, if a negligent driver is 100% at fault for a crash, that person should pay 100% of the damages related to the case. If the person bringing a lawsuit is determined to be partially at fault for his or her injuries, that person will be responsible for the amount of damages proportionate to his or her percentage of fault. So, if the Plaintiff is determined to be 10% at fault, that percentage remains his or her responsibility. However, if it is determined that the Plaintiff is more than 50% at fault for his or her own injuries, that person will recover nothing.

Why Do I Have to Pay At All If It Wasn’t My Fault?

It seems unfair. When a negligent driver causes injuries and property damage, the victims of the crash now have to try and put their lives back together. Everyone has their routines and responsibilities – the things they have to take care of day to day. Avoidable car crashes disrupt all of that. They make you late to wherever you were headed. They injure you, sometimes irreparably. They can cause stress. Yet, very often, the financial burden of immediate aftermath of a crash falls on the victim.

You have to get your car fixed. You have to go to the doctor. You lose time and pay at work. Often, it isn’t until the legal process is completed that these damages are addressed. Also, if a negligent driver who causes a crash has insufficient, or no insurance, you have to rely on your own auto policy to cover the cost of your vehicle and your medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of normal life, lost wages, etc.

One thing people can do to mitigate this problem is to purchase the most auto insurance coverage their budget will allow. The more coverage you have, the less risk you take when sharing the road with underinsured drivers. Illinois law requires auto policies issued in the state to include insurance that covers the policy holder and others covered by the policy if they are hurt by a driver who has no insurance or doesn’t have enough insurance. Negligent drivers should be held responsible when they cause damage, but if they don’t have enough insurance or money to pay for the damages they cause, it’s better to cover yourself to the full extent that you can.

Medical Bills Can Often Be Negotiated

If you’re hurt in a crash, medical bills can pile up in a hurry. If you have medical insurance that covers the bills initially, or you find a doctor that will treat you on a lien basis, there may be an opportunity to save on medical expenses once your case is settled by negotiating with the medical bill lien holders. There are statutes in Illinois that govern how medical bill and insurance liens are calculated in Illinois. Having the help of an experienced injury attorney to help you navigate these rules can make the process of resolving these issues much easier and more efficient than trying to figure it all out on your own.

Avoiding crashes altogether is, of course, the preferred outcome in any situation. Each person who ventures to travel anywhere, whether for work, fun, or chores, should strive to act as safely as possible. Still, we all know that we live in an imperfect world where not everyone does the right thing all the time, or even what they are supposed to do. Knowing what to expect and who to turn to if things go wrong, is a much better way to approach the hazards we all face when we venture out on to the road.

Annolino v. The City of Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 141934-U

Land owners have a duty to warn and protect invitees from defects that may cause injury, unless the defect is considered open and obvious. For a defect to be open and obvious the invitee has to prove that she was distracted and the landowner could reasonably anticipate that distraction. Generally speaking, we are considered invitees when we are on land owned by the City of Chicago. Therefore, Chicago has a duty to warn and protect us from dangerous conditions on city sidewalks and to take reasonable care that city land is safe and not likely to cause harm.

Imagine a clear August day in Chicago. Debra and Joe Annolino are walking from their daughter’s apartment on East Scott Street at around 8:45am. They are in front of an apartment complex when, suddenly, Debra trips and falls on a slab of sidewalk that’s raised 2.5 inches. She broke her right index finger and fractured her left kneecap, and sued the City of Chicago. Debra testified that she was not distracted, other than talking to her husband and looking around; fairly normal and expected behaviors. But, Debra also stated that if she had been looking down at the condition of the sidewalk, she would have seen the defect. The manager of the complex provided evidence that she sent letters to the prior and current alderman to fix the sidewalk where Debra fell.

Debra and Joe sued the City of Chicago for negligence, alleging that Chicago failed to maintain and repair the elevated sidewalk, failed to warn the public, and ignored specific complaints about the sidewalk. Debra further alleged that if Chicago exercised ordinary care then it should have known about the state of the sidewalk. The attorneys for the City disagreed, arguing that Debra’s fall and subsequent injuries were due to her own negligence and her failure to keep a proper lookout.

Chicago moved for judgement, arguing, using Debra’s deposition as support, that it owed no duty to Debra because the condition of the sidewalk was open and obvious. Debra responded that the condition was not open and obvious and, even if the court found that it was, the distraction exception applies. Debra reasoned that the condition could not be open and obvious because so many other people have tripped or fallen on that same condition before her. The Honorable John H. Ehrlich, circuit court judge, found Debra’s argument contrary to her own testimony and ruled in favor of Chicago. Without establishing that the city owed her a duty, Debra could not maintain her cause of action for negligence.

Debra asked the court to reconsider, arguing that Chicago owed her a duty of care because the alderman was on notice and the city had the funds to fix the defect. The court denied the motion and Debra appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed Judge Ehrlich’s decision, finding that the condition was open and obvious. Debra appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court then considered the distraction exception. Previously, the Court found that the distraction exception can only apply when there is evidence from which a court can infer that the plaintiff was actually distracted; whereas the mere fact of a plaintiff looking elsewhere does not constitute a distraction.

Here, the Court also found Debra’s testimony to be damning, the distractions that she alleged or testified were only speaking with her husband and looking around. An argument specifically rejected by our Supreme Court in a 2014 decision. That decision, which is the subject of another article, found that a distraction exception must be one that is not solely the plaintiff’s own creation. Looking around and holding a conversation were in Debra’s own creation and therefore did not qualify as a distraction under the exception.

Click here to read the full case note

Who Pays My Medical Bills After a Car Accident?

A Chicago couple claimed negligence. Turns out, they were the negligent ones