- PROGRAMS
- PUBLICATIONSCloseBack
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- RESOURCE HUBCloseBack
- ABOUT US
- PROGRAMS
- PUBLICATIONSCloseBack
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- RESOURCE HUBCloseBack
- ABOUT US
- You must be a paid subscriber to access the downloads
-
List of Forms by Chapter - Chapter 1 — Complaint, Answer, and Motions
- I. [1.1] Scope of Chapter
-
II. In the Beginning - III. Complaint
- [1.4] Preparation
- [1.5] General Form
- [1.6] Body of Complaint
- [1.7] Preface
- [1.8] Venue Allegations
- Allegations Relating to the Facts of the Occurrence
- [1.9] In General
- [1.10] Who, What, When, and Where
- [1.11] Specific Allegations of Negligence/Willful and Wanton Conduct
- [1.12] Injuries, Damages, and Proximate Cause
- [1.13] Prayer for Relief
- [1.14] Incorporation by Reference
- [1.15] Amendments
- [1.16] When the Defendant Dies Before the Statute of Limitations Expires, Who Is the Proper Party?
- IV. [1.17] Response to the Complaint
- [1.18] Before Responding
- [1.19] Appearance and Motion To Quash Summons
- [1.20] Motion To Transfer to a Proper Venue
- [1.21] Forum Non Conveniens
- [1.22] Motion Challenging the Sufficiency of the Complaint
- [1.23] Motion To Dismiss
- [1.24] Proximate Cause
- [1.25] Municipal Liability
- [1.26] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
- Answer, Affirmative Defense, and Counterclaim
- [1.27] Answer
- [1.28] Affirmative Defense
- [1.29] Counterclaim: Contribution or Other Damages
- [1.30] Third-Party Actions
- [1.31] Motion for Summary Judgment
- V. Plaintiff Returns
- VI. [1.36] Small Claims
- Chapter 2 — Discovery and Investigation
- I. [2.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. Informal Investigation Procedures
- [2.2] In General
- [2.3] Client Conference
- Insurance
- [2.4] In General
- [2.5] Insurance for Ride Share Drivers
- [2.6] Police Report
- [2.7] Illinois Vehicle Code
- [2.8] Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules and Regulations
- [2.9] Accidents Involving Multiple Vehicles or Tortfeasors
- Obtaining Witness Statements
- [2.10] Opponent’s Statement
- [2.11] Nonparty Witnesses’ Statements
- [2.12] “Act of God” Defense — Sudden Illness of Driver
- [2.13] Scene Inspection
- [2.14] Photographs of Damage to Vehicles
- [2.15] Repair Bills and Estimates
- [2.16] Enhanced Injury — Airbag Deployment Failure
- [2.17] Vehicle Safety Issues and Recalls
- [2.18] Weather Reports
- [2.19] Websites and E-Mails
- [2.20] Social Media Posts
- [2.21] Surveillance Photographs and Videos
- [2.22] Black Boxes and Other Tracking Devices
- [2.23] Expert Witnesses
- [2.24] Possible Uses of an Expert Witness
- [2.25] Experiments
- [2.26] Preservation of Evidence
- III. Formal Discovery Procedures
- [2.27] Scope of Discovery
- [2.28] Supreme Court Rule 224 — Pre-Suit Discovery
- [2.29] Written Interrogatories
- [2.30] Preparing Written Interrogatories
- [2.31] Preparing Answers to Written Interrogatories
- [2.32] Supreme Court Rule 138 — Limits on Disclosure
- [2.33] Updating Answers
- [2.34] Uses of Answers to Interrogatories
- [2.35] Discovery of Expert Information
- [2.36] Depositions in General
- [2.37] Deposition of the Opponent or a Witness
- [2.38] Presenting the Client for Deposition
- [2.39] Uses of the Deposition
- [2.40] Production Requests
- [2.41] Obtaining Statements from Parties and Employees of Parties
- [2.42] Obtaining Records and Other Data by Subpoena
- [2.43] Medical, Hospital, and Psychiatric Records
- [2.44] Employment Records
- [2.45] Documents Relating to the Opponent’s Expert
- [2.46] Cell Phone Usage Records
- [2.47] Text Messages
- [2.48] Sanctions for Failure To Comply with Discovery
- Chapter 3 — Preparation for Trial
- I. [3.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. Objective Sources for Analysis in an Automobile Accident Case
- [3.2] Reports, Black Boxes, and Video and Audio Recordings
- Law
- [3.3] Statutory Law
- [3.4] Illinois Vehicle Code
- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
- [3.5] In General
- Truck Cases
- [3.6] Agency dilemma
- [3.7] Apparent agency
- [3.8] Negligent hiring
- [3.9] Placard liability
- [3.10] Electronic data recording and the consulting expert privilege
- [3.11] Commercial driver’s license manuals
- [3.12] Municipal and Village Ordinances
- [3.13] Caselaw
- [3.14] Negligent Entrustment
- [3.15] Intersection Accidents
- [3.16] Traffic Signs
- [3.17] Traffic Signals
- [3.18] Rear-End Collisions
- [3.19] Criminal Proceedings
- [3.20] Photographs, Diagrams, Surveys, Plats, and Street and Security Videos
- [3.21] Inspecting the Site and Canvassing the Area
- [3.22] Statements
- [3.23] Depositions
- [3.24] Competency
- [3.25] Use of Discovery Depositions at Trial
- [3.26] Government Documents
- [3.27] Company Rules, Regulations, and Documentation
- [3.28] Time, Speed, and Distance Formulas
- III. [3.29] 50-Percent Rule
- IV. [3.30] Police Officers, Emergency Personnel, and Police Chase Cases
- [3.31] Police Reports
- [3.32] Past Recollection Recorded and Present Recollection Refreshed
- [3.33] Opinions That Can Be Expressed by a Police Officer That Are Not Reconstruction Testimony
- [3.34] Intoxication
- [3.35] Point of Impact
- [3.36] Opinions Regarding Skid Marks
- [3.37] Point of Impact Between a Vehicle and a Pedestrian
- [3.38] When Can a Police Officer Be a Reconstruction Expert?
- [3.39] Paramedics or Firefighters
- V. [3.40] Experts — Supreme Court Rule 213
- VI. [3.43] Trial Checklist: Am I Ready for Trial?
- [3.44] Are Jury Instructions Completed?
- [3.45] Have Supreme Court Rule 237 Requests Been Issued?
- [3.46] Are Motions in Limine Completed?
- [3.47] Are Basic Voir Dire Questions Ready?
- [3.48] Have the Depositions Been Reviewed and Outlined or Abstracted?
- [3.49] Have All of the Witnesses Been Lined Up and Prepared?
- [3.50] Is It Known How All of the Exhibits Will Be Presented Before the Jury?
- [3.51] Has a Pretrial Brief Been Prepared To Advise the Judge of the Relevant Liability and Damage Issues in the Case?
- [3.52] Is the Opening Statement Completed?
- [3.53] Is the Closing Completed?
- [3.54] How Should Counsel Begin Rebuttal?
- [3.55] Has the “Bad Faith” Demand Letter Been Issued?
- VII. [3.56] Appendix
- [3.57] Example — Use of Federal Highway Regulations; Time Speed Distance Formula; Impeachment of Truck Driver with Own Testimony re High Beams
- [3.58] Sample Form — Supreme Court Rule 214 Request To Produce
- [3.59] Sample Form — Supreme Court Rule 204(a)(3) Request To Produce at Deposition
- [3.60] Sample Form — Supreme Court Rule 237 Notice
- [3.61] Example — Trial Brief
- [3.62] Example — Trial Memorandum
- [3.63] Example — Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion
- [3.64] Example — Plaintiffs’ Jury Questionnaire in a Medical Malpractice Case
- Chapter 4 — An Overview of Supreme Court Rule 213
- I. [4.1] Introduction
- II. [4.2] Discovery Overview in Relation To Supreme Court Rule 213
- III. [4.3] Categories of Witnesses Under Supreme Court Rule 213
- IV. [4.7] Cross-Examination
- V. [4.8] Supreme Court Rule 213 Sanctions
- VI. [4.9] Illinois Caselaw Involving Supreme Court Rule 213
- VII. [4.10] Conclusion
- Chapter 5 — The Scope of Permissible Closing Arguments in Automobile Crash Accidents
- Chapter 6 — Intersection Collisions
- I. [6.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [6.2] Definitions
- III. [6.3] History of Intersectional Right-of-Way
- IV. [6.4] Determination of Whether Accident Is Intersectional Collision
- V. [6.5] Right-of-Way at Open Intersections
- VI. [6.10] Controlled Intersections
- VII. [6.20] Left Turn
- VIII. [6.23] Emergency Vehicle Right-of-Way
- [6.24] Illinois Vehicle Code
- [6.25] Tort Immunity Provisions Relating to Emergency Vehicles
- [6.26] Relationship Between the Illinois Vehicle Code and Immunity Provisions
- [6.27] Is the Driver Responding to an Emergency or Otherwise Engaged in the Enforcement or Execution of Laws?
- [6.28] Determining Fault — Checklist
- IX. [6.29] Nonmotorist Defendants
- Governmental Bodies
- [6.30] Design of Intersections
- [6.31] Improving Intersections
- [6.32] Traffic Signs and Signals
- [6.33] Failure To Provide Traffic Controlling Devices
- [6.34] Intended and Permitted Users
- [6.35] Failure To Maintain Traffic Controlling Devices
- [6.36] Responsibility for the Roadway in Question
- [6.37] Failure To Improve Traffic Controlling Devices
- [6.38] Signal Malfunction
- [6.39] Notice
- [6.40] Weather Conditions
- [6.41] Contractors and Utility Companies
- [6.42] Adjacent Landowners and Double-Parkers
- X. [6.43] Pedestrians
- XI. [6.48] Bicyclists
- XII. [6.49] Violation of Statute
- XIII. [6.50] Conclusion
- Chapter 7 — One-Car Accidents
- I. [7.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. Actions by Driver or Passenger in Automobile
- III. [7.6] Actions Against Road Contractors and Municipalities
- IV. [7.7] Actions Against Automobile Manufacturers
- V. [7.8] Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur
- VI. [7.9] Actions Against Own Insurance Company for Hit-and-Run Occurrences
- VII. [7.10] Common-Law Actions Against Vendor of Alcohol
- VIII. [7.11] Statutory Actions Based on the Use of Wireless Telephones and Electronic Communication Devices
- IX. [7.12] Is There a Viable Cause of Action Against a Rideshare Company for Sexual Assault by Their Driver?
- Chapter 8 — Rear-End Collisions
- Chapter 9 — Railroad Crossing Crashes
- I. Introduction and Summary of Illinois Rail Facts
- II. Applicable Laws and Rules
- III. [9.5] Types of Warning Devices
- IV. Investigation of the Railroad Crossing Crash Case
- V. Federal Preemption: The Erosion of Common-Law State Tort Claims
- VI. [9.16] Several Theories of Liability Not Preempted by Federal Law
- VII. [9.17] Mandatory Stop Sign Laws or Regulations
- VIII. Possible Theories of Liability
- IX. [9.24] Summary and Concluding Thoughts
- X. Appendix
- Chapter 10 — Across the Centerline
- I. [10.1] Introduction
- II. [10.2] Statutory Law
- III. [10.3] Common Law — The Calvetti Rule
- IV. [10.4] Res Ipsa Loquitur
- V. [10.5] Fault of Driver in Proper Lane
- VI. [10.6] Deliberate Movement Across Centerline
- VII. [10.7] Who Crossed the Centerline?
- VIII. [10.8] Trial Preparation
- IX. [10.9] Demonstrative Evidence
- X. [10.10] Conclusion
- Chapter 11 — Pedestrian v. Motorist: Can’t We All Just Get Along?
- Chapter 12 — Evidence of Drinking
- I. [12.1] Introduction
- II. Applicable Standards
- III. Issues to Which Evidence of Drinking Might Be Relevant
- [12.7] In General
- [12.8] Illinois Caselaw
- [12.9] Issues Raised by Evidence of Drinking by a Driver
- [12.10] Dramshop Act Cases
- [12.11] Actions Involving Violation of Prohibition Against Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol
- [12.12] Under the Influence of Alcohol vs. Intoxicated
- [12.13] Advantages to Proponent of Evidence of Drinking Phrased in Terms of Whether Driver Was Under the Influence of Alcohol
- [12.14] Question of Intoxication
- [12.15] Issues Raised by Evidence of Drinking by Passenger or Pedestrian
- IV. [12.16] Admissibility of Specific Kinds of Evidence
- V. [12.23] Admission of Evidence of Drinking Without Proof of Intoxication
- VI. Cases That Seem To Equate the Test for Submissibility in Dramshop Cases with the Test for Admissibility of Evidence of Drinking
- VII. [12.29] Conclusion
- Chapter 13 — Agency
- Chapter 14 — Reconstruction Experts
- I. [14.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. Opinion Testimony
- III. Reconstruction Experts
- IV. Foundation for Testimony
- V. [14.12] Qualifications — How Much Expertise Is Necessary?
- VI. [14.16] Collection of Physical Evidence
- VII. [14.17] Skid Mark Interpretation
- VIII. [14.18] Stopping Distance
- IX. [14.19] Calculation of Speed
- X. New Directions in the Law of Accident Reconstruction Experts
- XI. [14.23] Sample Direct Examination of Expert
- Chapter 15 — The Use and Presentation of Demonstrative Evidence in the Trial of an Automobile Negligence Case
- I. [15.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [15.2] Uses of Demonstrative Evidence
- III. [15.3] Stipulated Foundation
- IV. [15.4] Disputed Foundation
- V. [15.5] Real and Demonstrative Evidence
- VI. Particular Types of Demonstrative Evidence
- VII. [15.14] Demonstrative Evidence on Appeal
- VIII. [15.15] Conclusion
- IX. [15.16] Additional Reading
- Tyler D. Beckerle
Tyler D. Beckerle
Tyler D. Beckerle is Counsel at Roper & Associates in Scottsdale, Arizona, where he focuses on insurance defense. Beckerle is a member of the Illinois and Missouri State Bar Associations. He earned his B.A. from the University of Central Arkansas and his J.D. from the University of Missouri.
- Anneliese B. Fierstos
Anneliese B. Fierstos
Anneliese B. Fierstos is Of Counsel to Brown, Hay & Stephens, LLP, in Springfield, where she focuses on real estate law. She is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association. Ms. Fierstos received her B.A. from Denison University and her J.D. from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law.
- Christopher Patrick Ford
Christopher Patrick Ford
Christopher Patrick Ford is a solo practitioner in Chicago, where he focuses on injury cases filed on behalf of working families. In 2014, U.S. News and World Report/Best Lawyers named him Chicago Litigation Lawyer of the Year, and in September 2021, Marquis Who’s Who Top Lawyers awarded him the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He participates as an instructor in trial advocacy programs at Emory University School of Law and Harvard University Law School. Mr. Ford earned his B.A. from Kalamazoo College and his J.D. from Emory University School of Law.
- Martin J. Healy, Jr.
Martin J. Healy, Jr.
Martin J. Healy, Jr., is a Founding Partner of Healy Scanlon Law Firm in Chicago, where he focuses on products liability, interstate trucking, construction, railroad, medical malpractice, and many other types of injury cases. He is a Past President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, Past Chair of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee, a member of the Board of Governors of the American Association for Justice, and a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Healy earned his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and his J.D. from the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where he was Associate Editor of the law review.
- David S. Jasmer
David S. Jasmer
David S. Jasmer is Principle of the Jasmer Law Firm, in Chicago, where he concentrates his practice in plaintiffs’ personal injury law, including motor vehicle negligence, products liability, and medical malpractice. He served as an intern for the Honorable Joyce Hens Green in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He is a member of American Association for Justice, the Interstate Trucking Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, and the Chicago and Illinois State Bar Associations. Mr. Jasmer earned his B.A. from Michigan State University and his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.
- Neil Schelhammer
Neil Schelhammer
Neil Schelhammer is an attorney at Healy Scanlon Law Firm in Chicago, where he focuses on personal injury cases including construction, auto, trucking, products liability, and malpractice cases, in addition to workers’ compensation cases. Mr. Schelhammer received his undergraduate degree from Marquette University and his law degree from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, where he was selected to compete in both the Ellen A. (Nell) Hennessy Employee Benefits Moot Court Competition and the Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition.
- Jason G. Schutte
Jason G. Schutte
Jason G. Schutte is a Partner at Drake, Narup & Mead, P.C., in Springfield where he focuses on personal injury, civil litigation, and insurance defense. He is a member of the Illinois State and Missouri Bar Associations and the Illinois Defense Counsel. Mr. Schutte earned his B.A. from Western Illinois University and his J.D. from the Southern Illinois University School of Law.
- Steven C. Ward
Steven C. Ward
Steven C. Ward is Of Counsel to Brown, Hay & Stephens, LLP, in Springfield, where he focuses on litigation. He is a member of the Sangamon County and Illinois State Bar Associations. He has written several chapters for IICLE® and spoken at seminars on various topics. Mr. Ward earned his B.A. from DePauw University and his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Proving Fault in Auto Accident Cases 2023 Edition
An IICLE® Online Library subscription is required to view this content. For more information or to subscribe, click here.
Free monthly e-updates in 15 practice areas