Chicago, IL
Car accident Lawyer at Chicago, IL
Practice Areas: Car Accidents, Trucking Accident ... +3 more
OUTCOME: $200,450.24 Verdict for Plaintiff
Plaintiff was driver of a vehicle involved in a collision when a tow truck made an improper left turn in front of him. He received urgent hospital care without follow-up.
OUTCOME: $1,000,064.00 verdict for Plaintiff
Rear end auto collision resulting in unoperated soft tissue damage and neck pain.
OUTCOME: $2million settlement
Plaintiff sustained acetabular fracture (hip/pelvis) when the fornt of his vehicle struct the rear of the trailer of Defendant's vehicle which turned left in front of him
OUTCOME: $1million settlement
Client was a passenger who sustained pelvic injuries in a vehicle involved in a single car rollover accident
OUTCOME: $469,875.52 Verdict for Plaintiff (Gross verdict for damages before reduction for Plaintiff's contributory negligence was $783,125.87)
Plaintiff sustained severe soft tissue injury when involved in a collision with a garbage truck that was attempting to cross busy lanes of traffic. No injuries were demonstrated on x-ray, MRI or other ... tests. Plaintiff's damages were proven through her complaints and the treating physician's testimony. At trial Defendant contended that Plaintiff improperly crossed the yellow double lines in an effort to proceed into a left turn lane. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout for and should have seen the large garbage truck.
OUTCOME: $335,520.35 Verdict for Plaintiff. Affirmed on appeal.
Michael Wierzbicki won in the trial court. Michael Carter argued the case on appeal, which was affirmed by the 1st District. The case involved the City of Chicago's construction of an unreasonabl ... y dangerous wheelchair ramp in front of a building housing the elderly. The City of Chicago used its usual defense. This defense consisted of arguing that they didn't construct the ramp, they didn't know who did and they never had a complaint about the ramp. None of these were believable. A City employee testified he was in charge of keeping all complaints about sidewalks and ramps. He testified there was never a complaint about the ramp. Michael Wierzbicki pointed out that there wasn't even a complaint listed at the time of trial, some years after the city was served with a formal complaint filed in the court. The City must have wanted the jurors to believe there was some entity or person out there who just decided to install a curb ramp in front of the senior citizen home. After the Appellate victory the City tore out the dangerous ramp and replaced it with a safe one.
OUTCOME: $365,286.28 Verdict for Plaintiff
Complex legal malpractice case involving intepretation of state collection agency law, statutes of limitation and statutes of repose. Our client received bad advice from a nationally renowned law firm ... regarding the content of certain of its contracts and its business model. Specifically, our client was advised that it was not a collection agency under IL law and did not need to comply with the requirements of the state Collection Agency Act, including obtaining a license. When our client, through other lawyers, sought to sue on one of its contracts, it lost because the Court found it was operating as an unlicensed collection agency and its contract was unenforceable pursuant to state law. The attorneys then handling the case failed to promptly file suit before expiration of the statute of repose against the lawyers and firm who provided the intial bad advice. We proved 1) the advice received intially was the result of negligence by the first firm; 2) had the first firm given good advice, our client would have prevailed in its lawsuit on its contract; 3) the second firm was negligent in failing to file suit or negotiate a tolling agreement before expiration of the statute of repose; and 4) our client incurred $365,286.28 in damages - reflecting the recoverable damages from the breach of contract as well as the attorneys fees paid to the two law firms for their negligent work.
OUTCOME: $1,838,462.84 Verdict for Plaintiff
Pl was a contractor going to the roof of a commercial building to inspect roof damage. While attempting to walk through the door to the roof, Pl struck his head on the door frame. We proved the door w ... as shorter than permitted by building code, that the door was required to comply with the height requirements of building code and that Pl was injured due to the failure to comply. Defendant argued the door did not need to comply and argued the Pl was at fault for not watching where he was going. The jury found Pl was 0% responsible for the incident, was permanently injured and was permanently unable to maintain gainful employment due to his injuries.
OUTCOME: $585,390 Verdict for Plaintiff. Affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff was drinving a tow truck on a busy 2 lane highway when a passenger vehicle turned left in front of him from from a turn lane. The verdict far exceeded the Defendant's insurance policy lim ... its. Subsequent litigation netted recovery of the excess amounts.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
