HUNDLEY LAW GROUP

David Hundley named to special Illinois Supreme Court committee

HLG — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:25:38 +0000

On June 8 ,2011, the Illinois Supreme Court announced the entry of its order forming the Special Supreme Court Committee on E-Business. “The overall purpose of the committee … is to serve as representatives from the users’ standpoint for the development and implementation of e-business applications in the Illinois court system, including but not limited to e-filing,” the order states. David M. Hundley of Hundley Law Group is honored to be one of the eight appointees to the committee.

“As someone who has designed and developed an essentially paperless law office, and as an attorney who has always avidly leveraged technology in the practice of law, I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to assist and advise the Court in any way possible,” Hundley said. The committee chair is Bruce R. Pfaff of Pfaff & Gill, Ltd. The other committee members are attorneys Trent L. Bush, Alan Pearlman, Rebecca R. Jackson, Edward J. Walsh, Vanessa G. Jacobsen, and Thomas H. Wilson. (The official press release can be found here.)

David Hundley named to Super Lawyers 2011 list of Rising Stars

HLG — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:00:09 +0000

For the forth year in a row, Super Lawyers Magazine, in partnership with Chicago Magazine, has named David M. Hundley to its list of Illinois “Rising Stars.” The select list of attorneys who appear in Super Lawyers Magazine (and in the special section of the February 2011 issue of Chicago Magazine) is compiled through an extensive peer review process by the editors of Super Lawyers magazine. The magazine does not solicit attorneys for nominations, nor can lawyers submit themselves for consideration or buy a place on this prestigious list. Mr. Hundley was selected as an Illinois Rising Star in the area of Appellate Litigation, yet the magazine has also recognized his accomplishments as a personal injury and medical malpractice trial lawyer.

Chicago Bar Association Law Day Live web event was a big success.

HLG — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:00:13 +0000

The Chicago Bar Association’s Television Committee presented “Law Day Live” as a live webcast on Wednesday, April 27. During six 30-minute segments – each focused on a particular area of the law – viewers participated live with questions to the attorney hosts and guests. Although the event is finished, each useful segment can still be viewed on the CBA TV’s Ustream page.

The topics covered during this year’s Law Day Live were:

Mortgage Foreclosure (Host: Jeannine Cordero)
Divorce (Host: Barry L. Gordon)
Criminal Law (Host: Eleanor Oh)
Unmarried Parents (Host: Edward A. Snyder)
Estate Planning (Host: Harvey Shifrin)
Personal Injury (Host: David M. Hundley)

Hundley Law Group’s own David Hundley hosted the Personal Injury segment, and was fortunate to be joined by Brian C. Thomas, partner at Whiting Law Group, for an informative session. The personal injury segment can be viewed by clicking this link.

Court Allows Passenger Claim Against CTA

HLG — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:26:57 +0000

Claims against any defendant for injuries caused by an independent third party always pose challenges for plaintiffs. At the Hundley Law Group, we evaluate these claims to determine whether or not the action, inactions, or policies of the institutional defendant (often the landowner or a common carrier) can be found to have legally contributed to our client’s injuries. In Torf v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 1-09-1710 (11/12/10, Corrected 12/8/10), the Illinois Appellate Court permitted this type of claim to go forward against the CTA.

In this instance, the Plaintiff was injured while she was attempting to evacuate a CTA train, per the CTA’s order, because a person on tracks ahead was apparently threatening suicide. The Plaintiff fell when two other passengers pushed her while exiting. The Appellate Court held that the trial court had improperly granted summary judgment for CTA, which had claimed that it cannot be held responsible for a battery committed by a third party. Battery, however, is an intentional act, and the facts of the case were not sufficient to conclude that the third parties had battered the plaintiff.

Message in Wisconsin: Lowering minimum insurance limits is bad policy

HLG — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:22:16 +0000

Associated Press (2/7, Bauer) reported, “Minimum levels of car insurance that were increased two years ago would drop back down again under a bill up for a vote in the state Senate.” The bill would also make underinsured coverage voluntary, and allow insurers to categorize first-time buyers in a high-risk, higher-cost category. Wisconsin Association for Justice President-elect Edward Vopal and the WAJ has argued “the law will allow for changes in policies that drivers won’t know exist but that limit their coverage and make it tougher for them to collect following an accident.” Trial lawyers and Dems said “undoing the increases will allow insurance companies to provide less coverage but not lower rates or premiums accordingly.

Parents: Play It Safe This Holiday Season

HLG — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:08:10 +0000

Here at the Hundley Law Group, we hope that all parents (and grandparents, aunts, uncles, guardians, and all others who love and care for children) enjoy a stress-free and warm holiday season. So we hope that you’ll find the knowledge available in the American Association for Justice’s recently published guide to toy safety, “Playing With Safety,” to be a source of well-informed comfort rather than a stressful freak-out over some of the staggering statistics concerning the number of unsafe toys making it to the market.

The guide provides a practical overview for keeping kids safer by being a better toy consumer. You may find that reviewing it is time well spent. A PDF version of the guide can be found at www.justice.org/toys.

One Claim of Fatal Medical Neglect of Prisoner Upheld

HLG — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:00:59 +0000

Gayton v. McCoy, No. 08-2187 (1/28/10) The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld summary judgment in favor of several of the defendants (certain prison officials and medical personnel) in a Section 1983 civil rights action. The court found that the defendants did not violate the plaintiff-prisoner’s due process rights by failing to provide adequate medical care resulting in plaintiff’s death from a serious heart condition. The defendants who were dismissed were found to have either had no contact with plaintiff or attempted to assist the plaintiff, thereby not displaying deliberate indifference. However, the court reinstated the case against one nurse defendant who was aware of plaintiff’s heart condition, but allegedly refused to see her despite plaintiff demonstrating symptoms consistent with serious heart condition. In addition, the court found that the trial court committed error in failing to consider the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert linking plaintiff’s vomiting with her heart condition.

Teething Tablets and Candy Recalled

HLG — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:11:03 +0000

From the American Associate for Justice this morning: CQ HealthBeat (10/26) reports, “The Food and Drug Administration on Monday put out a warning that Hyland’s Teething Tablets may pose a risk to children and the company has agreed to a voluntary recall. The agency also passed along recall information about two candy products in this week before Halloween.” Notably, the “teething relief product, manufactured by the Standard Homeopathic Company, contains a small amount of belladonna, a substance that can cause serious harm at larger doses.” Meanwhile, “Nestlé USA’s Confections & Snacks Division has voluntarily recalled its Raisinets Fun Size Bags, which the company says may contain peanuts even though there is nothing on the label to indicate that,” and “Colombina, S.A., which manufacturers Mega Pops brand lollipops, is recalling specific lots of the candy” since “certain packages may contain ‘traces of foreign particles.’”

Some Post-Hudson Clarity – Green v. Northwest Community Hospital

HLG — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:30:14 +0000

Green v. Northwest Community Hospital, No.1-09-2233 (April 28, 2010). In the uncertain post-Hudson landscape of when a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal does or does not prevent a re-filing, this First District decision provides some clarity as to dismissal language that will steer clear of the “claim splitting” addressed in the Illinois Supreme Court’s case of Hudson v. City of Chicago. That language: “plaintiff is granted leave to voluntarily dismiss with leave to reinstate as a matter of right.” Since this language was held to be a clear pronouncement that the voluntary dismissal was an exception to claim-splitting, the refiled counts not finally disposed of in the original action were permitted to proceed. (The plaintiff also re-filed counts for which summary judgment was granted in the original case. Those counts, not surprisingly, were not allowed to survive.) For those of us who write appeals, the case also affirms the pronouncement in Sup. Ct. R. 341(h)(7): that points raised by an appellant for the first time in a reply brief are waived.

Recovery for slip and fall injuries is further muddied – Hope v. Hope

HLG — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:11:32 +0000

Hope v. Hope , No. 4-09-0707 (March 4, 2010). The fourth district upheld summary judgment for homeowner parents whose young adult daughter fell descending muddy steps (caused by the mother’s gardening activities). The daughter had encountered the muddy steps earlier in the day when she arrived at her parents’ home, but relied on the distraction exception, stating that while in the house (eating, sleeping, studying, and watching TV) she had forgotten about mud being on steps. The court held that since those activities did not occur during her fall, as is the case in other applications of the distraction exception, the exception did not apply. Essentially the court held that the distraction exception is not a “forgetfulness exception.” That sounds fine, except that the language that the court quotes from the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Rexroad v. City of Springfield, 207 Ill. 2d 33 (2003), states quite clearly that the exception is meant if a person will “be distracted . . . or will forget what he has discovered or will fail to protect himself against it.”