Articles Archive - Page 2 of 3 - Cassidy & Mueller Merge

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.

Recent Developments in Construction Negligence: An Update of Complexities in Construction Negligence Litigation

IDC Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 2 (14.2.41)

This articles picks up where COMPLEXITIES left off in considering the disparate treatment of Section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in construction injury cases.

Complexities in Construction Negligence Litigation

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

This article picks up where the Illinois construction negligence law left off following repeal of the Structural Work Act.

Adoption of the Risk-Utility Rule in Negligence Design Cases – Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 Ill. 110096 (2011)

IDC Quarterly Vol. 23, No. 4 (23.4.28)

Historically, in Illinois, as well as other jurisdictions, the doctrine of strict liability in tort has been differentiated from cases in which the plaintiff contends that the product was negligently designed, manufactured or sold with inadequate warnings.

Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Company, A Synthesis of Approaches in Design Defect Cases

Vol. 19, No. 1 (19.1.71).

Here the Illinois Supreme Court in a product liability case held that the plaintiff and defendant are each entitled to “pick his own poison”.

Developments in Product Liability Law, The Harm of Hindsight Analysis in Design Defect Cases, The Foolproof Product Redux

IDC Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 2 (14.2.7.4)

This articles discusses the alternative use of the “consumer expectation” doctrine and the risk/benefit or risk/utility standard in design defect cases.

Evolution of the Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Illinois – Doctor Knows Best Mostly

IDC Quarterly Vol. 12, No. 3 (12.3i)

This articles deals with the so-called “learned intermediary” rule in pharmaceutical and medical device 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)