Articles - Cassidy & Mueller P.C.

Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.: Daylight Comes to Section 414

Feature Article David B. Mueller Timothy J. Cassidy Cassidy & Mueller P.C., Peoria Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Company: Daylight Comes to Section 414 I. Introduction The Illinois Supreme Court in Carney v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2016 IL 118984 dealt with three claims founded upon provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: (1) Section […]

Duty To Settle — Exhaustion, Commercial And Professional Liability Insurance

Ch. 16, IICLE (2014)

This is a chapter in the Illinois Continuing Legal Education text on insurance coverage. It involves excess exposures vis a vis policy limits and policy limit demands.

Wills v. Foster, A Split Decision In The Battle Between Compensatory Damages and the Collateral Source Rule

IDC Quarterly Vol. 18, No. 4 (18.4.26)

This article involves the governmental discount which is accorded to bills which are paid through Medicare or Medicaid.

Arthur v. Catour In the World of Compensatory Damages A Consideration of Arthur v. Catour in the Context of Its Ancestors and its Progeny

IDC Quarterly Vol. 17, No. 3 (17.3.8)

This article deals with whether a plaintiff is entitled to submit the face amount of medical bills which have been satisfied at a “discount”.

Coverage for Kotecki Waivers: Finally an Answer

IDC Quarterly Vol. 17, No. 2 (17.2.34)

As discussed in Complexities in Construction Negligence Litigation, inter alia, in Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 155 (1991), the Illinois Supreme Court “capped” an employer’s contribution liability based upon its statutory exposure for compensation benefits.

Complexities in Construction Negligence Litigation

IDC Quarterly Vol. 13, No. 3 (13.3.18)

As discussed above, this article includes an in-depth discussion of “additional insured” and “targeted tender” issues which uniformly pervade construction negligence cases.

Construction Negligence-Significant Developments Which Affect and Shape the Tort

IDC Quarterly Vol. 25, No. 4 (25.4.37)

This article clarifies both the control requirement and the necessity that a plaintiff prove actual or constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition or work practices as a prerequisite to recovery.

Vicarious Liability In Construction Negligence Cases Misapprehension Leads To Mischief

Vol. 21, No. 3 (21.3.58)

Here, the authors consider the trend of First District cases to recognize vicarious liability as a basis for recovery under Section 414.

Continuing Developments in Construction Negligence: A Further Update of Complexities in Construction Negligence Litigation

IDC Quarterly Vol. 18, No. 2 (18.2.4)

A further update of complexities in construction negligence litigation, this article follows the cases under Section 414 since Shaughnessy, Martens and Moss, supra, and points out the trend of Appellate Courts in the First District to recognize a vicarious liability basis for recovery under Section 414. Cochran v. Sollitt Constr. Co., 358 Ill. App. 3d 865 (2005).

Premises Liability Exposure in Construction Injury Cases

IDC Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1 (15.1.50)

This articles continues the analysis of the various theoretical grounds used by plaintiffs in pursuing construction injury cases.

"The law is not an inflexible structure whose walls restrain progress. Rather, it needs to be nudged molded and shaped. An able advocate best represents his client by convincing the Courts of that fact."

John E. Cassidy. Sr. (1896-1984)
Firm Founder Illinois Attorney General (1938-1940)