Tag Archives: Chicago accident attorney

Arizona Back-Up Uber Driver Was Watching TV On Her Phone At Time Of Fatal Crash

Date
Posted by

I wrote several months ago about the self-driving Uber accident that killed a pedestrian. It was unclear at the time whether the self-braking system had failed or whether the pedestrian who walked out onto the street gave the vehicle enough time to stop.

Many of those questions have now been answered in a 300 page accident report from the Tempe, Arizona police. According to a car accident lawyer, the back-up driver was watching the television show “The Voice” on her phone when the car crash occurred. The report concludes that if the driver would have been paying attention to the road rather than her phone, she could have braked on time as she could have reacted 143 feet prior to striking the pedestrian.

The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), released a separate report last month, which said the autonomous driving system on Uber’s Volvo XC-90 SUV spotted the pedestrian about six seconds before hitting her, but did not stop because the system used to automatically apply brakes in potentially dangerous situations had been disabled. Thus, the duty of stopping on time for pedestrians or other vehicles was left to the back-up driver.

The family of the deceased pedestrian has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both the driver and Uber. In most states, Uber insures their driver’s vehicles up to 1 million dollars per accident. I’d imagine that the family of the deceased are seeking over 1 million and to collect over the policy limits they would need to allege in their complaint and prove that Uber was negligent in the training and supervision of their driver (i.e. the driver was not made sufficiently aware that the self-driving brake system would not stop in certain situations).  Maybe the drivers are overly reliant on the autonomous braking system, and that they should have been trained to be more vigilant even when the self-driving program is on. The family could also allege that Uber’s technology was faulty or that it should not have been disabled, especially at night. I will be following this case as it progresses.

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured in a Chicago pedestrian accident or Chicago Uber accident, then call Chicago accident attorney, Aaron J. Bryant, for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076.

Toronto Blue Jays Latest MLB Team To Extend Protective Netting Behind Home Plate

Date
Posted by

I have written in the past about several major league baseball franchises extending the netting behind home plate in an attempt to protect fans from foul tips and broken bats. According to ESPN, the Toronto Blue Jays are extending the protective netting at Rogers Centre to the outfield end of each dugout this season and increasing the height of netting behind home plate by approximately 10 feet, to 28 feet. Ten other franchises have previously extended the netting in recent seasons and Toronto is one of eleven other teams to announce the extensions for the 2018 season.

It is interesting to see this move by major league baseball. As I have written in the past, when a fan buys a ticket to a major league game, the ticket includes a waiver that exempts the teams from liability due to injuries from errant balls and bats flying into the stands. This also includes a flying hot dog that injured a man’s eye at a Kansas City Royals game several years back. A Missouri appeals court concluded that this waiver of liability included an errant hot dog that flew from a launcher sent out to fans that injured a man.

At a 2016 game in Tampa, who had also recently extended their nets, a foul tip actually flew through the netting and injured a fan. It is unclear whether a lawsuit was filed in that case, but I believe it could have been argued that the Tampa organization could have been held liable because they actually created the dangerous condition by not providing a sufficient protection when the ball flew through the net. Or in the alternative could argue that the netting was defective.

Regardless, it is encouraging to see a majority of the major league baseball teams take necessary steps to protect their fans.

If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in Chicago personal injury accident or a Chicago workers compensation accident, then please call Chicago accident attorney, Aaron J. Bryant, for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076.

Does Rosemont Hotel Face Civil Liability Following Death of Teenager in Kitchen Freezer?

Date
Posted by

Multiple news outlets reported last month that the unusual death of teenager Kenneka Jenkins at a Crown Plaza Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois was ruled an accident. The Rosemont Police Department issued a statement her death was accidental and said there was “no evidence that indicated any other conclusion.” There was no sign of date-rape drugs in her toxicology reports, the office said.  “Our detective reported no signs of foul play throughout the whole investigation… there is no evidence that Ms. Jenkins was forced to drink alcohol or consume any narcotics while at the hotel.”

Surveillance video from the hotel shows the teenager stumble into the kitchen area, before disappearing around a corner. The footage does not show her entering the freezer.

Right now it does not appear that that anyone from the party Ms. Jenkins attended nor will anyone from the hotel will face criminal charges. The question remains whether the hotel will face civil liability for Ms. Jenkins death. The short answer is absolutely. It is my understanding her family has retained legal counsel, and they are no doubt investigating this matter as we speak.

A civil suit against the hotel will most likely contain at least two (2) counts. One for negligence and one for premises liability. The premises liability count will allege that a defective condition on the property caused Ms. Jenkins death. The negligence count must show that the behavior of the hotel staff and/or security was not reasonable and thus caused her to end up in the freezer.

The difficulty for the plaintiff in this type of case comes with the difficulty of proving causation. The plaintiff will have to show, under both the premises and negligence counts, that the hotel’s actions (or inactions) proximately caused the death. Proximate cause is best described as whether it was foreseeable that this woman would end up in the freezer based on their negligent actions or defective condition on the property. Just because a plaintiff can show negligence or defective conditions, does not necessarily mean that these were the proximate cause. Plaintiffs must do their best at showing that whatever was done wrong, i.e. lack of proper locks, lack of security etc… could foreseeably lead to someone who has been drinking alcohol to wander into the kitchen and eventually the freezer. Without knowing more of the facts in this case it would be hard to predict the outcome. I will say that this will be the most contentious issue should this case lead to litigation.

If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a Chicago premises liability accident, or Chicago personal injury case, please call Chicago accident attorney, Aaron J. Bryant for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076,