Premises Liability
Contact:
- James P. Moran
- 630.384.3119
MRV takes pride in its vast premises liability practice, having extensive experience representing clients in both commercial and residential premises-based liability actions. In our commercial premises liability practice, we have successfully defended national retailers, shopping mall owners and management companies, grocery store chains, fuel stations, hotels, restaurants, recreational and amusement properties, child care centers and other local business proprietors. These matters have involved such issues as slip-and-falls and trip-and-falls, to allegations of malicious prosecution, false arrest, failure in security measures, liquor liability, and defects/ hazards in and around the commercial premises. MRV takes pride in its aggressive defense of these premises liability actions, namely our dispositive motion posturing from the onset of the litigation, our thoroughness through the discovery process, and our preparedness for trial of these matters.
A unique service MRV provides to its clients is risk control seminars. The goal of such seminars for our retail and other business proprietor clients is to evaluate any and all potential risks, with a goal to minimize future claims and the impact of such claims on future business.
Commercial Premises Liability Cases
Obtained summary judgment, in a federal court venue, on behalf of a national retailer whose security measures were called into question after the plaintiff-customer was stabbed on the store premises, sustaining serious injury and requiring surgical intervention and a lengthy hospitalization.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a retailer wherein the plaintiff-customer alleged she slipped and fell on a liquid substance on the floor of the store, causing significant injury to her cervical spine and other areas of her body.
Prevailed at trial defending a national oil company and its employees against a claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution brought by plaintiffs-customers, after an incident disrupted the flow of business at defendant’s gas station and plaintiffs were ultimately arrested for disorderly conduct.
Prevailed at trial defending a local casino against a personal injury claim by a casino patron who claims that he received injuries as a result of being bumped into a wall at the top of the stairway by someone that he believed was a casino worker.
Successfully tried a personal injury suit on behalf of a local amusement park brought by a plaintiff-patron, who claims to have sustained low-back and leg injuries that required hospitalization when a roller coaster car full of patrons circled the track and rear ended the roller coaster car in which the plaintiff was seated.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a real estate management company in a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who claimed she was injured when she slipped and fell on an unnatural accumulation of ice at an apartment complex, sustaining serious orthopaedic-related injuries.
Illinois Department of Human Rights Cases
In addition to the matters enumerated above, MRV represents national retailers and local businesses in matters brought before the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) based upon alleged discriminatory actions and/or practices.
Successfully defended a national retailer before the IDHR wherein the complainant alleged the retailer implemented racially discriminatory surveillance practices. After an extensive response was prepared on behalf of the retailer and a lengthy investigation and fact-finding process was concluded, the IDHR held that there was no evidence of the discrimination.
Successfully defended a national retailer before the IDHR in numerous charges wherein the complainant alleged the retailer denied them service based upon their race. As in all such cases, a thorough response packet and supporting documentation was prepared on behalf of the retailer and, after the fact-finding process, the charges were dismissed.
Residential Premises Liability Cases
In our residential premises liability practice, we have defended homeowners in lawsuits brought in connection with slip-and-fall accidents, trip-and-fall accidents, ice- and snow-related accidents, dog bite incidents, public nuisance claims, and allegations of assault and battery.
Successfully defended a physician in an action for property damage filed against him by the physician who occupied the suite below him in the professional building adjacent to Good Samaritan Hospital. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered over $150,000 in property damage and lost revenue from water cascading into his office that was alleged to have originated from a sink left running overnight in the suite occupied by the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant physician.
Obtained a dismissal of a complaint filed by a plaintiff injured after having been struck in the head by a frying pan during a subdivision picnic. The defendant homeowner was participating in a “frying pan throwing contest” when the frying pan left the designated area for the contest and struck the plaintiff who was working a food booth nearby, causing injury to the left side of her face. The plaintiff failed to serve the defendant in a timely fashion and the trial court granted a motion brought by the defendant for lack of diligence, resulting in a dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.
Represented a homeowner whose dog bit the elderly plaintiff on the back of her leg. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered tendinitis in her hips as a result of having taken an antibiotic prescribed by her physician for a wound infection following the dog bite. As a result, the plaintiff claimed she was unable to participate in activities she enjoyed, including gardening, walking and vacationing. At trial, the defense admitted liability but contested the nature and extent of the damages claimed, including the medication-induced tendinitis. The plaintiff requested over $150,000 in damages from the jury. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $8,500 representing the plaintiff’s medical bills and $5,000 in pain and suffering. Although claimed, the jury did not award money for any disfigurement. The jury verdict was less than what was offered at a settlement conference two years earlier.