Majority of my civil defense practice is centered in Cook County, Illinois, one of the most litigious and populous counties in the United States of America. Since it encompasses the entire city of Chicago, the jury pool tends to be liberal, plaintiff-friendly, and from a variety of backgrounds. Because of how liberal and plaintiff-friendly the jury pool (and subsequently the judges are), winning dispositive motions in Cook County is extremely difficult, if not borderline impossible. While these are motions that defense counsel must file to provide the best defense for our clients, the general belief across the aisle is that these motions are not won and they just remain appealable issues for the parties to deal with at the appellate level. Of course, the larger the case with more complex issues and severe the injuries, the harder it becomes.

That was the exact thought process that all the attorneys adhered to for a catastrophic limousine accident lawsuit I became involved with in 2016. From what should have been a simple auto accident lawsuit due to the limousine driver not seeing the lane shift ahead of him ballooned into a massive theory built by crafty plaintiffs’ attorneys against numerous engineers, design consultants, and contractors involved with three separate construction projects spanning a couple of miles on the highway where the accident took place. Five years later after over 175 depositions, hundreds of thousands of pages of construction documents reviewed, and innumerable hours spent on this case, it was the time to file dispositive motions, or rather a motion for summary judgment. This is a type of motion where a judge makes a determination as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot proceed against the defendant(s), and the case is dismissed without the plaintiff receiving any type of monies or the case going to a jury. Since the latter is a constitutional right, that is huge.

All the defendants filed their motions for summary judgment, with everyone asserting arguments specific to them. One argument applied to all defendants across the board (barring the driver), which is that the driver was the sole “proximate cause” of the accident, meaning that he is the one who caused the accident. Not the defendants, but just the driver. Notwithstanding the complex theory developed by the plaintiffs focusing on design and signage, none of that mattered as it all came down to the unforeseeability of the driver’s actions that day, which broke the legal causal connection between the alleged wrongdoing and the subsequent accident.

Since the plaintiffs with the more significant injuries in this case included a grieving husband who filed an estate’s claim on behalf of his wife who passed away in the accident, a quadriplegic, a woman with a shattered lower extremity, and a young 20 year old limousine driver with multiple back fractures, this case was thought to be exactly like one of those typical “Cook County” cases where the defendants file the motion for summary judgment to make their record and it is denied. That is certainly what the general impression was.

Yet, the presiding judge decided to hear this issue before hearing all the individual arguments raised by the respective defendants. After a 7.5 hour hearing that included multiple rounds of arguments from each side, the Judge considered all the facts and actually pulled the trigger, granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing every defendant (except the driver) from the case. Her underlying rationale was that it was so unforeseeable that an underage, unlicensed, tired limousine driver would not pay attention to various markings on the same roadway that he had traveled through within the same configuration multiple times in the week leading up to the accident, that any causation the defendants had for the signage and the design was cut off. There were insufficient facts to establish Plaintiff’s claims of negligence and summary judgment was appropriate. She focused on the details rather than getting caught up in the inflated emphasis of the severity of the injuries.

The case is now pending on appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is winning dispositive motions in Cook County difficult?

Winning dispositive motions in Cook County is difficult due to the liberal and plaintiff-friendly jury pool.

Why are filing dispositive motions crucial for providing the best defense for clients?

Filing dispositive motions is crucial for providing the best defense for clients, even though they are often seen as not likely to be won.

What led to a seemingly simple limousine accident case escalating into a massive legal battle?

A catastrophic limousine accident lawsuit escalated into a massive legal battle involving numerous parties and complex issues.

What can filing a motion for summary judgment result in?

Filing a motion for summary judgment can lead to the case being dismissed without going to a jury trial, which is a significant constitutional right.

What was the crucial argument in the limousine accident case?

The argument that the limousine driver was the sole proximate cause of the accident was crucial in the case, overriding other complex theories presented by the plaintiffs.

Why did the presiding judge grant the motion for summary judgment despite expectations?

The presiding judge granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing all defendants except the driver based on the unforeseeability of his actions.

What did the judge focus on in granting the summary judgment?

The judge focused on the details and causation rather than the severity of injuries in granting the summary judgment, emphasizing the importance of facts over emotional impact.

Is the legal battle in the limousine accident case resolved?

The case is currently pending appeal, indicating that the legal battle is not yet resolved.

What were the significant injuries suffered by the plaintiffs in the case?

The case involved plaintiffs with significant injuries, including a grieving husband, a quadriplegic, and a young limousine driver with multiple fractures.

Why did the judge grant summary judgment based on the driver's actions?

The judge's decision to grant summary judgment was based on the driver's unforeseeable actions, leading to the dismissal of all defendants except the driver.