Automobile Accident

John Fleming defended the vehicle driver in a moderate impact, two vehicle accident that occurred at an intersection controlled by stop signs.  The majority of the treatment of the injured plaintiff was through a local chiropractor.  The injured plaintiff was a 25 year old female who was employed as a dealer at the gambling boat, who did not miss a day of work, but claimed that she could not knit with her grandmother anymore because her neck hurt.  The jury, consisting of a majority of middle-age female members did not believe the plaintiff and returned with a not guilty verdict in favor of John’s client.

Abigail Fleming handled a personal injury action involving a vehicle – pedestrian collision in a parking lot outside the entrance to a grocery store in Canton, Illinois.  The driver of the vehicle and the grocery store were named as Co-Defendants.   The grocery store was sued for issues regarding the design of the parking lot.  Abigail presented the position that Illinois Motor Vehicle Code does not apply to vehicle accidents in parking lots.   Parties were eventually able to reach a settlement to the satisfaction of all parties involved. 

John Fleming defended a case that involved a compact car that struck the rear of a pickup truck, arguably with no damage to either vehicle.  The injured plaintiff claimed neck, back, and arm pain, and missed 6 weeks of work which he voluntarily took off.  The jury returned with a not guilty verdict in favor of John’s client, the defendant driving a compact car.  After the trial, the jury members reported they did not feel there was a significant enough impact to cause any injury.

John Fleming tried a case involving a defendant who was driving a delivery van, was distracted, and rear-ended a car operated by the allegedly injured plaintiff.  Plaintiff received in excess of $16,000.00 in physical therapy and exercise treatments, at a facility where the only supervision of the amount of treatment was the facility manager who received a bonus based on the amount of treatments.  The jury returned with a not guilty verdict in favor of John’s client, the delivery van driver.

John Fleming tried a case that involved a minor rear-end tap accident.  The injured plaintiff claimed a neck injury, and received in excess of $10,000.00 in chiropractic treatment.  The jury returned with a verdict of less than $200.00.  There were two keys to the low verdict, based in the chiropractor’s testimony.  First, the chiropractor testified that on each visit where he found the physical condition of the injured claimant to be “good”, the chiropractor claimed the jury should ignore those findings, because, in his practice of chiropractic and on his office charting, “good” really means “bad”.  Second, the chiropractor included two charges for his range of motion testing - once during his routine examination and a second time, immediately following the physical exam, during a test when the patient was hooked up to a computer.

Abigail Fleming defended a lawsuit seeking recovery for personal injuries sustained from an alleged motor vehicle – pedestrian accident.  Plaintiff brought identical claims against two female defendants driving two separate vehicles. One defendant was a younger female, the other defendant, represented by Abigail, was a middle-aged female.  Discovery depositions revealed that prior to the incident, plaintiff and a group of friends had been at a local dance club and consumed alcoholic beverages.  In the parking lot, Plaintiff had a verbal altercation with the younger defendant regarding a shared ex-boyfriend and vandalism to a vehicle over the romantic entanglement. 

Abigail established through the evidence that her client drove a small crossover vehicle and parked her car without striking any individual.  Abigail’s client was pulled from her vehicle and involved in a fight with jumper cables and a crowbar.  The fight dissipated and Abigail’s client left the scene, never having struck Plaintiff.  None of the witnesses testified that Abigail’s client hit anyone with a small crossover vehicle or touched Plaintiff.  Abigail brought a Motion on behalf of her client, and the trial court granted summary judgment, dismissing Abigail’s client prior to trial.   

John represented a vehicle driver who made contact with a child on a bicycle in a roadway. The incident was recorded on several "Ring camera" videos from nearby houses. The judge considered all of the videos in making a determination and granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-driver and against the minor bicyclist who entered the roadway from a side road.

John Fleming defended an SUV driver who struck a young child, under age 10, in front of a school.  The child, who was holding his sister’s hand walking home from school, broke free from his sister’s grip, and ran into the middle of the roadway, where he was struck by the passing SUV driver, resulting in a broken leg.  The jury returned a not guilty verdict in favor of John’s client, the SUV driver, finding that the injured child was guilty of 51% or more of the fault in causing the impact between the pedestrian and passing vehicle.

John Fleming handled a jury trial, involving an automobile accident with $110,000 in special damages, in Tazewell County, Illinois.  The injured plaintiff was operating the last car in line in a “chain reaction” collision on a busy, high-speed, five lane roadway.  Plaintiff claimed the defendant driver engaged in an improper sudden stop and partial left turn into the middle turn lane, causing all vehicles in the line of traffic behind her to brake suddenly.  The plaintiff suffered a broken leg and had permanent rod in his leg. At the end of a three day trial, the jury returned with a verdict of “Not Guilty” in favor of Attorney Fleming’s client, finding no negligence on the part of the defendant driver.

Abigail Fleming handled a jury trial, involving an accident between a City police car and a private vehicle at a red light.  The police vehicle was on an emergency call and ran the red-light.  The Defendant’s vehicle had a green-light, but had a statutory duty to yield to the police vehicle.  The jury verdict apportioned the liability 75% - 25%, between the police officer and Defendant driver.  The jury allotted a portion of fault on the police vehicle for not waiting a safe interval of time before entering the intersection against the light, and only a portion of the fault on Defendant driver.