At the conference, you’ll have the opportunity to view a recently-videotaped trial online before the conference. You’ll see the deliberation at the conference, and an elite faculty of top trial attorneys and jury psychologists will critique the trial and the jury’s behavior.
For more inforamtion about attending this seminar click the following link:
Jury Management Conference

Patton & Ryan LLC recently won an important victory in the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Carlson v. Glueckert Funeral Home, Ltd. That case involved a question of first impression as to the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act, 755 ILCS 65/5, 15, 40 and 50 (West 2011) (“Act”).

The Act states that where a dispute exists as to the right to control the disposition of a decedent’s remains, a court of competent jurisdiction will resolve the dispute, and the cemetery organization or funeral home will not be liable for refusing to accept the decedent’s remains or to otherwise dispose of those remains until it receives a court order or other confirmation that the dispute has, indeed, been settled.

In Glueckert, a dispute arose between the adult children of Eleanor Carlson as to the manner in which to dispose of Ms. Carlson’s remains. Two days after her death in September of 2007, Ms. Carlson’s son, Scott, contacted the Glueckert Funeral Home to arrange for Ms. Carlson’s funeral and burial. Scott presented the funeral home with Ms. Carlson’s power of attorney, will and trust documents as proof of his authority to dispose of her remains. After discussing funeral arrangements, Glueckert Funeral Home took possession of Ms. Carlson’s body. Shortly thereafter, however, Ms. Carlson’s estranged daughter, Denise, contacted the funeral home, demanding that other arrangements be made. The funeral home then contacted Scott and informed him that the funeral would be delayed because of the dispute. Later that month, Glueckert Funeral Home transferred Ms. Carlson’s body to the Lake County coroner’s office; the funeral home then informed Scott that it considered the body abandoned and noted that it had not been refrigerated for the prior 11 days, causing extensive decay. On October 11, 2007, Scott obtained a court order for the release of Ms. Carlson’s body. Ms. Carlson was buried a week later.

Ms. Carlson’s family brought suit the next year, claiming a number of theories, including breach of contract, common law fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and “interference with the next of kin’s right to possess and preserve the decedent’s body.” Glueckert Funeral Home moved to dismiss the Carlsons’ lawsuit on several grounds. The funeral home claimed that it was protected under the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act and, as such, was subject to no liability related to Ms. Carlson’s remains.

The Cook County Circuit Court agreed with Glueckert Funeral Home and granted its Motion to Dismiss. The Carlsons then appealed the issue to the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal.

In doing so, the Appellate Court defined the protections offered to funeral homes under the Illinois Disposition of Remains Act. The Court stated, “It is not the role of funeral homes and cemeteries to judge the relative legal rights of feuding family members. That task is left to the courts and for good reason.” The Court additionally noted that the term “dispute” is undefined in the Act; however, it held that “[t]he conflicting assertions of rights by Scott and Denise, in the plain and ordinary sense of the term, qualify as a dispute[.] Therefore, the circuit court did not err in concluding that a dispute existed between Eleanor’s children and its judgment is affirmed.”

Unhappy with the result, the Carlson’s filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of Illinois. On September 28, 2011, in an unpublished decision, the Supreme Court denied the Carlsons’ Motion for Leave to Appeal, allowing the ruling of the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court to stand.

Once again, Patton & Ryan LLC successfully defended its client on a cutting-edge issue, one brought to the highest court in the State of Illinois. Through diligence, ingenuity and strong advocacy, Patton & Ryan LLC obtained the best possible outcome for its client in a case involving a legal question never before addressed in Illinois. This is the skillful work for which Patton & Ryan LLC is known.

The party was a huge success and a fun time for all who were able to attend. We look forward to working with all our clients on what will surely be a successful 2012!

The JVR award was the result of reviewing over 10 years worth of favorable jury verdicts in Cook County and around the State of Illinois.

To learn more about the Illinois Jury Verdict Reporter, a subsidiary of the Law Bulletin, click here…

DRI is the international organization of attorneys defending the interests of business and individuals in civil litigation.

For more information about DRI, you can click here

John Patton and several of his staff are attending the ABA conference which is the nation’s preeminent forum on lawyers’ professional liability issues and developments.

More Info…

More information about the TIDA event can be found HERE

Only a few weeks before trial, Patton & Ryan was dropped into a products liability case resulting from the explosion of a can of aerosol spray paint. The Plaintiffs in the case had been demanding nearly $10 million and mediation had not been successful. On October 9, 2001, Laura Knabe and her two small children went into their basement to get Halloween decorations. Suddenly, a spray can fell off a shelf, ruptured and spun wildly while spraying paint vapors everywhere. A nearby pilot for the water heater ignited a fireball that severely burned Alexandra, age 7, and Nicholas, age 3. Laura with her son in her arms ran outside suffering burns in the process. Meanwhile, Alexandra saved her sleeping two month old sister upstairs and earned the Girl Scout Lifesaving Medal.

Alexandra suffered 3rd degree burns causing significant permanent scarring on her left calf, thigh and hip. She was admitted to two different hospitals and underwent extensive treatment including numerous skin grafts and debridements. Future plastic surgery is required to reduce the scarring near her ankle. She is embarrassed by her condition and has received psychological treatment. Nicholas suffered burns to his face and both arms. He also underwent extensive and aggressive treatment. He has permanent scarring on both arms and a discoloration on his face. Laura Knabe suffered minor burns but was prevented from returning to work due to her injuries and the increased caretaking responsibilities caring for her children.

At an early date, plaintiffs thought about their case and aggressively preserved damages evidence. They promptly retained counsel who began collecting evidence. Plaintiff’s counsel and experts were on the scene and in the hospitals, immediately taking pictures. Not only did they photograph the burns but also the debridement and surgical treatment. This captured heart wrenching footage of agony and the children’s intensely painful ordeal.

Plaintiffs’ expert conducted numerous tests to show how easy the cans were to puncture. Tapes of this testing also showed how the fumes could ignite and essentially gave plaintiffs a reenactment. Numerous dropC tests of the aerosol cans revealed how falls from even low heights could puncture a can. When the defense called upon Patton & Ryan there was no evidence to challenge plaintiffs’ video proof of defendant’s cans’ vulnerability to punctures from such benign falls. The defense expert even had to admit that a falling can could rupture. While he believed a fall did not cause the subject explosion, he had no test or other proof to support much less confirm his opinion. The defense was in a bind.

Patton & Ryan quickly recognized the glaring, and sharp contrast between the weakly supported defense expert and the extensive workup behind plaintiffs’ theories. The trial team, led by John Patton and Michael Vranicar, began aggressively challenging the Plaintiff on multiple fronts. By leveraging technology, Patton & Ryan was able to conduct depositions in three states over a relatively short time period while controlling costs at an acceptable level.

Although trial was only weeks away, the defense was able to re-depose Plaintiff’s experts and conduct additional discovery. Armed with investigation and research, they vigorously attacked plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions and qualifications. Testimony in different cases and consultation with other experts provided fertile ground for new lines of cross examination. New research into the effect on plaintiffs’ lives, uncovered evidence that Alexandra continues to play soccer and excel at school despite her claimed emotional trauma. She graduated from middle school with honorable mention and had been on the student council. In high school she is a varsity starter in girl’s soccer.

New interviews with witnesses uncovered helpful information about claims of similar incidents. Contacting former employees for the fi rst time produced cooperative witnesses with valuable testimony. Further, we were able to thwart all efforts by plaintiffs to turn the witnesses against us. The newly aggressive defense brought plaintiffs back to the table for successful negotiations on behalf of our clients. While the resulting settlement is confidential, it was very favorable to our client. Plaintiffs even relented and gave in to our request for settlement confidentiality.