Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Megabus Crash in Illinois

A Megabus crash last summer caused injuries to a passenger and left her disabled and disfigured, according to a new lawsuit filed in Cook County.

The Megabus was traveling between Chicago and St. Louis on I-55 when a front tire blew, causing the driver to lose control and strike a concrete pillar in Litchfield. More than 70 passengers were on board at the time of the crash and several had to be extricated. One passenger died in the collision and dozens were injured, including the woman who filed the recent lawsuit.

The lawsuit names Megabus as a defendant as well as the driver of the bus, the owner and operator Coach USA, and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations which reportedly made the tire at issue. Reports indicate that the driver of the bus was still in training when a front tire blew on the highway. The driver claims he removed his foot from the accelerator but did not brake because he feared causing the double-decker bus to roll over.

After the collision last summer, Megabus released a statement saying the bus had been made just the prior year and had passed a full safety and preventative maintenance inspection within the week before the crash.

Several passengers recounted the crash to media outlets after the collision, saying the force of the impact was significant and threw many passengers forward and out of their seats, some into the aisles. Unfortunately this often occurs with bus accidents of any type because buses rarely have seat belts available for passenger use.

Many people have a false sense of safety while aboard a large passenger vehicle like a bus or motorcoach because of the size of the vehicle compared to the other passenger cars on the road. In reality, bus accidents occur daily and often cause serious injuries, including broken bones, cuts and bruises, head and neck injuries, and even death.

Chicago is a major hub for busing both locally and across the nation with service by PACE, CTA, Greyhound, and private buses. When you ride on a bus or motorcoach, you place your safety in the hands of the driver, assuming the driver is knowledgeable, skillful, and safe. That is not always the case and bus drivers can be negligent like any other driver on the road.

If you have been involved in a bus accident that left you injured or if a family member was injured or killed by the negligence of a bus driver, please call the Chicago bus accident lawyers at Abels & Annes, P.C. for a free, no-obligation consultation regarding your case. If you have been injured, you have legal rights and should contact an attorney to discuss them in detail. We can be reached 24 hours a day at (855) 529-2442 or (312) 924-7575.

Note: Abels & Annes, P.C. does not represent the woman who recently filed a lawsuit in this matter but has represented individuals in very similar accidents in the past.

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

Chicago bike accident lawyer files Cook County lawsuit on behalf of injured teen

Illinois bicycle crash attorneys at Abels & Annes have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Chicago teenager that was injured by a negligent driver. This claim arises out of an automobile vs. bicyclist collision which took place on August 22, 2009 at approximately 2:50 p.m. There was plenty of light, the roads were straight and flat and visibility was good.

The plaintiff, a fifteen year old boy, was riding his bicycle westbound along the sidewalk that ran along the north side of 37th Street in Chicago, Illinois. The defendant was driving southbound, exiting an alley. As the motorist drove across the sidewalk, she hit the bicycle rider with the front end of her vehicle.

The Chicago Police Department responded to the accident. The defendant admitted to the investigating police officer that she struck our client with her vehicle as she was exiting the alley.

After being struck the bicyclist flew up onto the driver's hood, and when the car stopped the teen was thrown off the hood onto the pavement. After landing on the pavement the plaintiff had an immediate onset of pain and discomfort.

The bike rider had back pain, left hand pain, and right foot pain. He was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital’s Emergency Room by his mother.

At Mount Sinai the teenager complained of back pain. A history was taken, he was examined and diagnostic testing was performed. He was given pain medication and instructed to seek follow up care after a few days.

Over the next couple of days the plaintiff's condition worsened and he sought follow up treatment at Mount Sinai’s Emergency Department two days later, on August 24, 2009. He continued to complain of severe low back pain. He was again examined and additional diagnostic tests were performed. A possible spinal fracture at L3 was discovered and a neurosurgeon was consulted. He was given more pain medication and muscle relaxants, was instructed to stay out of gym class and was instructed to seek follow up care. He was eventually allowed back into a modified gym class.

On August 25, 2009 our client followed up with a board certified neurologist. He continued to complain of severe low back pain. The doctor ordered a follow up x-ray. On August 27, 2009 he saw another physician and complained of severe back pain. At that time the doctor agreed with the neurologist’s plan of care. Teen was seen by the neuro again on August 31, 2009 at which time he continued to have complaints of back pain. The doctor ordered a CT scan and also recommended that the plaintiff stay home from school due to possible spinal fracture.

On September 8, 2009 a CT scan identified disc bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1 as well as a 3 mm bone island in the CT and a course of physical therapy was prescribed. Following the initial course of therapy he returned to the neurologist on October 5, 2009 with ongoing complaint of back pain radiating into his right thigh. The doctor extended the course of therapy and prescribed muscle relaxants.

Following the second course of therapy the teen returned to the doctor on November 2, 2009 with ongoing low back pain, especially in the morning. The physician explained that recurrence of back pain is a normal part of the healing process. The doctor discharged him as having reached maximum medical improvement.

Unfortunately on December 14, 2009 the plaintiff suffered a severe exacerbation of his back pain when he bent over to pick up a television remote. He went to Mount Sinai’s Emergency Department where he was given pain medications and muscle relaxants and instructed to seek follow up medical care.

On December 18, 2009 he followed up with on of his physicians. He continued to complain of severe low back pain radiating into his thigh. The doctor prescribed another course of physical therapy. Following this course of therapy he returned to the doctor with ongoing low back pain with numbness in his right leg. His doctor suspected a herniated disc at L4-5 and ordered an MRI.

The lumbar MRI performed on January 8, 2010 revealed a 2 mm disc bulge at L3-4, a 4-5 mm disc bulge at L4-5, and a 5 mm disc bulge at L5-S1. Based upon these findings the doctor referred our client to a pain specialist, board certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist.

The client first saw the specialist on January 28, 2010. He recommended lumbar epidural steroid injections. Due to his mother’s concern regarding this procedure they sought a second opinion from another neurologist with Mount Sinai Medical Group. The second doctor agreed with the first doctor's plan. The injections were performed on February 4, 2010. Following the initial injection the client had relief for two or three days and then the pain returned, although at a slightly lower level than prior to the injections.

Following the injections both doctors recommended that the continue with physical therapy. The plaintiff continued with therapy at Schwab Rehabilitation Center through the beginning of December, 2010.

Given the plaintiff's young age the treating physicians are very reluctant to perform any sort of invasive surgical procedure such as a spinal fusion. There are no real treatment options left other than to continue with the home exercise program provided through physical therapy, curtain his physical activities and learn to live with his pain and limitations.

Medical expenses incurred by our client so far total over $50,000.

Despite the treatment he has undergone, the teen continues to suffer from pain and discomfort in his low back. This pain has greatly affected his life. As a result of his injuries he has been unable to engage in many activities he enjoyed prior to the collision, and those activities he can engage in cause him pain and he cannot participate as he did prior to the collision.

It remains painful for him to sit, stand or walk for any length of time. It is painful for him to bend or twist. The teenager was an avid football player and softball player. He dreamed of playing college football. However, since the collision he has been unable to participate in football, softball or any other sports. He was taken out of gym class and when he was returned it was to a specialized gym class.

These restrictions would be traumatic for anyone, but they are especially burdensome for a teenager who should be in the most active and carefree portion of his life. The injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant will continue to trouble the plaintiff for the remainder of his life. He has even been told by his doctors that he will not be able to perform any physical labor which will significantly impact his career options and lifetime wages.

As often the case with auto insurance carriers, the adjuster evaluating the claim has no clue to what the case is worth, and offered the plaintiff a minimal amount to settle. A lawsuit was filed against the defendant to maximize the client's recovery.

The last time our office went to trial against this insurance carrier, our client was awarded an amount over 5 times greater that the pre-litigation settlement offer. Some insurance adjusters never learn, and this is why accident victims often need help from the injury attorneys at our office.

If you have received a low settlement offer from an insurance company on a bodily injury claim, or if you feel you are being treated unfairly, or if you just feel you are in over your head, contact the accident lawyers at Abels & Annes for a free consultation.

Other recent blog posts:

Accident attorneys file lawsuit against DUI driver

Injury lawyers settle case for insurance policy limits

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

Chicago injury lawyer settles DUI accident lawsuit for $100,000 policy limits

Illinois personal injury lawyer Gary Annes has reached a $100,000 policy limits settlement on behalf of a client who suffered painful injuries in a car accident caused by woman who had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol prior to the incident.

On August 2, 2008, the defendant was driving northbound, at an excessive rate of speed, in the leftmost lane of IL-53 in Rolling Meadows when she lost control of her vehicle, improperly crossed over all lanes of traffic to her right and the shoulder, impacted with the metal guardrail, swerved back left, and crashed into the passenger side rear quarter panel of the plaintiff’s 2000 Subaru Forrester.

The woman admitted to paramedics that she had been drinking, and the drug screen at the emergency room was positive for marijuana, cocaine, and valium. She later admitted to smoking marijuana on two separate occasions that day, including approximately 45 minutes before the incident.

The woman had a prior DUI conviction from less than a year prior to that date, as well as other prior arrests related to drugs and alcohol. She was issued several tickets for the incident and pled guilty to failure to reduce speed to avoid a collision, improper lane usage, and driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The accident was investigated by the Illinois State Police.

After impact, the victim’s car began to spin out of control, causing her to hit her head on the driver’s side window, hit her left arm, elbow, shoulder, knee, and ankle against the driver’s side door, and her right knee against the center console. When the paramedics arrived, she complained of headaches and hyperventilation.

Shortly after the accident she was treated at the Glenbrook Hospital emergency room. There, the woman complained of pain in her neck, left shoulder, elbow, arm, knee, and was suffering from a headache. Tests were performed and an MRI revealed that she had multiple disc protrusions. The pain and discomfort then worsened over the next couple days. Her primary care physician recommended a course of physical therapy.

On November 10, 2008, the victim followed up with her primary care physician as she was still experiencing pain, primarily in her head and neck. She was referred to a chiropractor and underwent physical therapy treatment from then until June of 2009. Despite these treatments, the plaintiff’s condition continued to worsen, especially with regard to her knees and ankles.

Her doctor ordered MRI’s for her knees, which revealed meniscus tears in both. The doctor related both injuries to her car accident and recommended bilateral knee arthroscopies with debridement. He then performed the surgery at Weiss Memorial Hospital in July 2010, which he reported was needed as a result of the motor vehicle collision. She was prescribed a course of treatment consisting of twenty-five physical therapy sessions.

As her knee problems became more manageable, she sought treatment for the pain in her foot and ankle. Bilateral MRI’s were performed, and showed sprain or partial tear of the distal posterior tibial tendon in both feet and an avulsion injury of the synchondrosis of the naviculare in the left foot. The doctor reported that the condition was caused by the motor vehicle accident and recommended surgery for both the foot and ankle, which the woman plans to undergoe in the near future.

As a result of the injuries caused by the intoxicated driver, the victim was unable to engage in many of the activities she enjoyed prior to the collision. In addition, most activities of her daily life, such as sitting, standing, cooking, shopping, cleaning, walking stairs, and going to work, were impossible for a time, and then later caused her pain when she did attempt to accomplish them.

She hired the lawyers our law firm shortly before the two-year statute of limitations, and we immediately began working to secure the maximum compensation possible for the life-altering injuries she sustained at the hands of a negligent driver. We obtained the defendant's insurance policy limits. And we continue to work on the case, however, as the $100,000 is not adequate to compensate the victim for all the pain and suffering she has endured. We are now seeking additional monetary damages in the form of an underinsured motorist claim against her own insurance provider.

Tort liability is based on a simple notion, fairness. You have the absolute right not be subjected to harm at the hands of others, and if you are, you have the right to monetary compensation for your injuries. If you have been unfairly hurt by another person in a car accident, bicycle accident, work injury, slip and fall, or other situation, please call Abels & Annes. Our lawyers will consult you on your accident, free of charge. Call (866) 99-ABELS to speak to an attorney.

Click below to read other recent articles:

Attorney resolves truck vs. pedestrian accident case

Auto accident lawyer keeps settling cases

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

US Supreme Court Reinstates Seat Belt Lawsuit Against Mazda Over Woman’s Wrongful Death

Next » Posted On: February 23, 2011 by Michael A. DeMayo

In a unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court says the family of Thanh Williamson can sue Mazda for her wrongful death. The lower courts had dismissed the seat belt defect. lawsuit blaming the automaker for failing to install lap-and-shoulder belts in the rear seat of the 1993 minivan she was riding. Williamson died in 2002 while wearing only a lap belt. The other passengers in the vehicle who were using lap-and-shoulder belts survived the deadly head-on crash.

Mazda sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it had been in compliance with federal safety regulations that give automakers the option of installing lap belts only in certain rear seats. It also referred to Geier v. American Honda Motor Company, a previous Supreme Court case over a similar regulation that let automakers decide whether to install air bags. The lower courts had referred to Geier when dismissing the family’s auto products liability complaint.

In Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, although the Supreme Court is not disavowing Geier or that the history of regulation is similar to the history of air bags, Justice Breyer’s opinion noted that the regulators were not worried about lap-and-shoulder restraints’ consumer acceptance and they weren't afraid there might be more safety risks from these belts. They also were certain that the lap-and-shoulder belts would improve safety and their concerns about how much it cost to install the more elaborate seat belt system were no longer as great.

North Carolina Seat Belt Defect Cases:
Seat belt defects can cause serious injuries during a traffic crash. A vehicle occupant thinks he/she is properly secured but in fact is not. When a seat belt defect is a result of a manufacturing or design error, the automaker can be held liable for North Carolina auto products liability or wrongful death.

Examples of common seat belt defects:


View the Original article

Facebook Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Next » Posted On: February 15, 2011 by Laura G. Zois

A plaintiffs' lawyer in Chicago has filed a ridiculous misguided wrongful death lawsuit blaming Facebook for a driver's failure to pay proper attention to the road, causing her to hit a 70 year-old pedestrian who was on the side of the road after being involved in a minor traffic accident.

On liability, the Plaintiffs have a good smoking gun. Assuming the facts in the lawsuit are true, the Defendant driver updated her Facebook page at 7:54 a.m., the same time that the decedent made a 9-1-1 call for help

This is great evidence against the Defendant driver. But, clearly, Facebook is no more to blame than a radio station playing bad music, causing a driver to divert their attention to turning the station.

Posted by Laura G. Zois

View the Original article

Topamax Cleft Lip Lawsuit

Next » Posted On: March 11, 2011 by Laura G. Zois

The FDA said last week it is telling Americans that Topamax causes an increased risk of oral birth defects - specifically cleft lips and cleft palates - in children whose moms took Topamax during pregnancy.

Topamax is approved to treat epileptic seizures and to prevent migraines, which it reportedly does quite effectively. But all of the evidence suggests that Tomamax can raise the risk of cleft lips and cleft palates in infants exposed to the drug during pregnancy.

If you delivered a child with an oral birth defect after taking Topamax while pregnant and want more information from a lawyer, visit our Topamax lawsuit information center to learn more about Topamax birth defects. You can receive - even anonymously - a no cost, legal evaluation of your potential Topamax claim.

Posted by Laura G. Zois

View the Original article