<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Keefe, Campbell &#38; Associates, LLC &#187; leased</title>
	<atom:link href="http://keefe-law.com/blog/index.php/tag/leased/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://keefe-law.com/blog</link>
	<description>KCA&#039;s Workers Compensation &#38; Employment Law Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 21:38:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Illinois Appellate Court affirms a $3,000,000 award finding an automotive leasing company can held liable for the driver/operator’s negligence based on “logo liability.”</title>
		<link>http://keefe-law.com/blog/2010/01/18/illinois-appellate-court-affirms-a-3000000-award-finding-an-automotive-leasing-company-can-held-liable-for-the-driveroperator%e2%80%99s-negligence-based-on-%e2%80%9clogo-liability-%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://keefe-law.com/blog/2010/01/18/illinois-appellate-court-affirms-a-3000000-award-finding-an-automotive-leasing-company-can-held-liable-for-the-driveroperator%e2%80%99s-negligence-based-on-%e2%80%9clogo-liability-%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sullivan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Workers Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leased]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logo liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keefe-law.com/blog/?p=684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Illinois employers and more  particular truck leasing organizations should be aware of this important and  peculiar decision. You may want to take steps to prevent the potential windfall  that may come as a result of frivolous third party claims.
In  U.S.  Bank v. Lindsey, No. 1-07-2606 (1st  Dist. Dec. 7, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Illinois employers and more  particular truck leasing organizations should be aware of this important and  peculiar decision. You may want to take steps to prevent the potential windfall  that may come as a result of frivolous third party claims.</p>
<p>In  <strong><em>U.S.  Bank v. Lindsey</em></strong><em>,</em> No. 1-07-2606 (1st  Dist. Dec. 7, 2009) the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a Circuit Court  decision on appeal. Defendant Carmichael Leasing Company leased a vehicle to a  company and their driver of the leased vehicle ran into and killed a co-employee  whose job it was to load the truck. Only in Illinois would the leasing company now owe  over a million dollars for their simple act of leasing the vehicle that  allegedly caused injury.</p>
<p>To  clarify, on the date of injury Decedent was an employee of the driver’s  employer. He was unloading trucks when he was struck by the truck being operated  by the driver. There was conflicting testimony as to what precisely caused the  accident, however the prevailing testimony was the driver somehow negligently  misused the truck’s brakes causing the vehicle to roll and pin Decedent against  another vehicle. Decedent’s ribs were crushed and he passed from his injuries.</p>
<p>This  was an unfortunate accident to be sure, and our hearts go out to Decedent’s  children but it must be noted he was under the influence of  <strong>heroin</strong> at the time of the  accident. In fact, Defendant’s expert testified Decedent had 10-20 times the  amount of morphine in his blood as would be given to a normal patient in severe  pain. This amount of morphine is not only enough to kill a man but the fact that  he was able to tolerate it was suggestive of chronic abuse. Defendant’s expert  further testified the amount of heroin in Decedent’s blood was tantamount to  “molasses on the brain” and his cognitive and motor abilities were undoubtedly  significantly impaired. This was not lost on the jury who found Decedent to be  contributorily negligent, but only 50%. Likely because of unusual jury  instructions including the circuit court barring of some of Defendant’s expert’s  testimony, this level of comparative fault may have been far less than we would  have anticipated given someone working directly next to Decedent was able to  smoothly avoid injury while Decedent was crushed.</p>
<p>Nevertheless,  $3,000,000.00 was awarded to Decedent’s estate, less 50% for his own negligence.  As the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for recovery  against an employer in workplace injuries, Decedent’s employer was released of  all civil liability. It may be presumed they paid death benefits pursuant  Illinois  workers’ comp law. Similarly, the driver could not be held liable as the Act  provides immunity for injuries caused by the tortious acts of a coworker.</p>
<p>Who was  then left for decedent’s estate to collect from? Well why not a company with no  relation to any parties involved, other than a vehicle lease agreement with  Decedent/Defendant’s employer?</p>
<p>That’s  right, Carmichael Leasing was found to be liable for the entire award. To our  knowledge, Illinois has never been faced with facts  similar to this. Our Appellate court opted to take the most liberal route  possible and implement what is called “logo liability.” Essentially, this means  a company providing a leased vehicle is blindly liable for the negligence of the  driver of said vehicle who they don’t know, don’t train and don’t warn. There  were no allegations of any problem or dysfunction with the equipment.  Particularly disturbing in the case at hand is Decedent was found to be within  the coverage of the Interstate Commerce Act which provides protection to members  of the <em>travelling public</em>. It is  beyond us how unloading stationary trucks in the course and scope of his  employment rendered Decedent a member of the “travelling public.”</p>
<p>The  legislative intent in providing protection to the travelling public was to  provide a financial remedy for those without other recourse. It was almost  certainly not to provide a windfall of benefits from multiple sources with  minimal or no relation to the injured party. We also don’t see the need for  strict liability for anyone leasing a truck—the risk should fall upon the person  who is actually negligent. The Appellate Court, in our opinion, took as liberal  an approach as possible and the floodgates will almost certainly be opened for  excessive litigation and frivolous third party suits, all at the cost of  Illinois truck  leasing companies.</p>
<p>This  article was written by <strong>Michael  Sullivan</strong>, one of our top law  students and paralegals. Please do not hesitate to reply with thoughts and  comments or post them on the blog. If you need the cite of the case, send a  reply.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://keefe-law.com/blog/2010/01/18/illinois-appellate-court-affirms-a-3000000-award-finding-an-automotive-leasing-company-can-held-liable-for-the-driveroperator%e2%80%99s-negligence-based-on-%e2%80%9clogo-liability-%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.374 seconds -->
