Attorneys


Related Practices

Not Guilty Verdict in Auto Liability Claim - Plaintiff Asks Jury for $1.2 Million

January 2007

Jim Jendryk obtained a Not Guilty verdict in an automobile liability matter tried in DuPage County.  The demand prior to trial was $900,000 and the plaintiff asked the jury for $1.2 million.

The accident occurred at an intersection which was controlled by a stoplight. Both parties believed the color of their light was green. The defendant, who was 16 years old at the time, t-boned the plaintiff, who was a 38-year-old director of sales, causing the plaintiff's vehicle to roll over but still land upright.

Jim contended that the plaintiff ran the red light.  He argued that the plaintiff was traveling into sun without sunglasses or the sun visor down and that, based on his own testimony, the plaintiff could not have gotten to the intersection while the light was still green. This was corroborated by one of plaintiff's witnesses, who acknowledged that the eastbound green light was a short light of 10 seconds or less.  Consequently, the defendant entered the intersection on a green light, making the plaintiff responsible for the accident.

The plaintiff suffered a C6-C7 facet fracture, with herniation and iliac bone fusion.

Jim was successful in barring defendant's alleged admission to paramedic and hospital staff that he was traveling over the speed limit as substantive evidence in the plaintiff's case-in-chief. Relying upon the Fifth District case of Reagan v. Searcy, Jim argued that, because the defendant's own personal injury action in this case was settled prior to trial, the doctor-patient privilege extended to the defendant.  The court agreed that the matter could not be used as substantive evidence for the plaintiff, but did permit the plaintiff to impeach the defendant using that testimony.

No independent witness helped the plaintiff establish that his light was green, while there were two independent witnesses who did say the southbound light was green, yet their credibility was severely questioned and attacked by the use of prior inconsistent statements, as well as the limited opportunity to observe prior to and at the time of the accident.