Forklift Equipment Product Liability Complaint - Part 6

Download PDF Version


OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC ACT 89-7 ARISING OUT OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION

17. Public Act 89-7 violates the Illinois Constitution Preamble's assurance of legal, social and economic justice.

18. Public Act 89-7 violates Article I, Section 2, by depriving persons of property without due process of law and denies persons the equal protection of the laws.

19. Public Act 89-7 violates Article I, Section 12, by denying persons a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which they receive to their person, privacy, property and reputation, and by preventing persons from obtaining justice by law freely, completely, and promptly.

20. Public Act 89-7 violates Article I, Section 13, which guarantees that the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.

21. Public Act 89-7 violates Article I, Section 18, by denying equal protection of the laws on account of sex by the state.

22. Public Act 89-7 violates Article I, Section 23, by allowing wrongdoers to escape recognition of their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.

23. Public Act 89-7 violates Article IV, Section 8, because it fails to be confined to one subject.

24. Public Act 89-7 violates Article IV, Section 13, as it constitutes a special law where a general law can be made applicable.

25. Public Act 89-7 violates Article VI, Section 1, as it represents an invasion and usurpation of the judicial power which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court and Circuit Courts.

26. Public Act 89-7 violates Article VI, Section 9, as it interferes with the Circuit Court's original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters.

27. Public Act 89-7 violates Article VI, Section 16, because it invades and usurps the general administrative and supervisory authority over all courts which is vested in the Supreme Court and which shall be exercised by the Chief Justice in accordance with its rules.

28. Public Act 89-7 violates Article I, Section 6, as an invasion of privacy.

29. That the Plaintiff's cause of action is a form of “property” that qualifies for constitutional protection. Public Act 89-7 impermissibly reduces the value of private property of some members of society in order to benefit a private group in violation of Article I, Section 15 of the Illinois Constitution.

30. The aforementioned violations include but are not limited to the following:

a. The amendments to Section 2-1003, 8-802, 8-2001 and 8-2003 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1003, 734 ILCS 5/8-802, 735 ILCS 5/8-2001 and 735 ILCS 5/8-2003 ), declare that every plaintiff claiming bodily injury or disease is deemed to have waived any privilege between the injured person and any health care provider who has furnished care to the injured person; the Act requires any such party to sign a written consent granting any other party to the action the right to obtain any and all medical records, regardless of whether the records are relevant to the action; the Act also grants to any party the right to communicate, whether verbally or in the writing, with any such health care provider, without notice to or the presence of the injured person

Section 2-1003, as enacted, is a clear violation of Article I, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution which guarantees every citizen the right to be secure from invasions of privacy.

The amendments to Sections 2-1003, 8-802, 8-2001 and 8-2003 constitute an invasion of the judicial power vested in the Illinois Judiciary, in violation of Article VI, Section I of the Illinois Constitution because these amendments, as enacted, are in conflict with a number of existing Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

The amendments to Sections 2-1003, 8-802, 8-2001 and 8-2003, as enacted, usurp the inherent power granted to the Illinois Supreme Court as conferred in Article VI, Section 16 of the Illinois Constitution. Article I, Section 16 grants to the Illinois Supreme Court the general administrative and supervisory authority over all courts to be exercised by the Chief Justice in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Illinois Supreme Court.

The amendments to Sections 2-1003, 8-802, 8-2001 and 8-2003 also fail to provide equal protection of the law to injury victims by depriving any injured party of the right to confidential medical treatment records and to confidentiality in relationships with health care providers by mandating dismissal of an action for bodily injury if the injured person refuses to waive his or her recognized physician/patient privilege as articulated in Section 2-1003.

Sections 2-1003, 8-802, 8-2001 and 8-2003 as enacted violate the Illinois Constitution by forcing any injured party to choose between the constitutional right to the access of courts which is guaranteed to every individual in Article I, Section 12 and Article I, Section 13 and the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed in Article I, Section 6.

b. Section 2-1007.1 requires the trial court to deceived the jury as to the appropriate measure of redress.

c. Section 2-1115.05 improperly directs the jury to determine punitive damage awards based on the economic status of the injured person rather than the nature of the conduct by the tortfeasor and its economic status, which serves to discriminate against children, the poor, unemployed, elderly and women.

d. Section 2-1115.1 irrationally and arbitrarily denies the right to trial by jury by predetermining the limit of damages to be awarded to the victim or family members regardless of the catastrophic nature of the injuries or death incurred.

e. Section 2-1117, as amended, elevates the rights of a wrongdoer over those of the victim by denying the victim his right to a full complete remedy.

f. 740 ILCS 100/3.5, 820 ILCS 305/5, as amended, and 820 ILCS 310/5 as amended deprive injured Illinois workers of a complete and full recovery as a result of injuries sustained at the work place.

g. 740 ILCS 130/2 and 740 ILCS 130/3, as amended, provide arbitrary immunities to landowners for their injuries sustained by innocent persons on their property.

h. 735 ILCS 5/2-623 and 735 ILCS 5/2-2104 deprive plaintiffs access to the courts in violation of Article I, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution and violate the separation of powers doctrine embodied in Article II, Section 1 and Article VI, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution.

i. 735 ILCS 5/2-2106 provides arbitrary immunities to manufacturers for injuries sustained by their failure to warn innocent persons of the risks associated with their products.

j. 735 ILCS 5/13-213, as amended, arbitrarily and unreasonably abolishes existing common law remedies in violation of Article I, Section 12, of the Illinois Constitution and constitutes impermissible special legislation in violation of Article IV, Section 13, of the Illinois Constitution.

k. 735 ILCS 5/2-622, as amended, arbitrarily and unreasonably abolishes existing common law remedies in violation of Article I, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution and usurps the power vested in the Judiciary as conferred by Article VI, Section 1, and Article VI, Section 16 of the Illinois Constitution.

1. 735 ILCS 5/2-624 violates the separation of powers doctrine embodied in Article II, Section 1 and Article VI, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution, offends equal protection guarantees set forth in Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution, and constitutes impermissible special legislation in violation of Article IV, Section 14 of the Illinois Constitution.

m. 735 ILCS 5/8-2501, as amended, violates the separation of powers doctrine embodied in Article II, Section 1 and Article VI, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution, offends equal guarantees set forth in Article I, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution, and constitutes impermissible special legislation in violation of Article IV, Section 13 of the Illinois Constitution.

Unconstitutional As Applied

31. That the Act ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1107.1 ) directs the trial court to mislead the jury by withholding from the jury the law's elimination of the Plaintiff's recovery in the event his contributory fault is more than 50% of the proximate cause of his injury.

32. That the Act, by eliminating the doctrine of joint liability ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1115 and 2-1117), prevents the Plaintiff from obtaining full recovery for even those losses not attributable to his own fault. His recovery against the Defendants is limited to their respective degrees of “several” liability; any liability of his employer -- or other unnamed tortfeasor in the personal injury action -- will further diminish the Plaintiff's recovery and violate state due process protection mandated by Article I, Section of the Illinois Constitution.

33. That the Act could extinguish altogether the Plaintiff's right to recovery if his employer's fault is sufficient to offset the liability of the named Defendants -- any Defendant's “several” liability can be further reduced (pursuant to 740 ILCS 100/3/5) proportionate to the fault of the Plaintiffs employer.

34. That the Act fosters upon the courts and litigants sham trials with contribution cases filed against third-party defendants who have no exposure, yet whose proportionate share of liability will diminish Plaintiff's recovery pursuant to the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act ( 740 ILCS 100/3.5 and 4).

35. That the Plaintiff has incurred, and may reasonably expect to incur, “non-economic damages,” as that term is defined in the Act's amendment ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1115.2 ) to such an extent that any reasonable jury would award him more than $500,000 for that aspect of his claim.

36. That the Act ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1115.1 ) limits his recovery for such damages to $500,000, thus depriving him of rightful recovery through a trial by jury.

37 That the Act ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1107.1 ) directs the trial court mislead the jury by withholding from it the law's limitations on the Plaintiff's recovery.

38. That the Act ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1003, 8-802, 8-2001, 8-2003, and 8-2004) constitutes an unconstitutional invasion of privacy by declaring that the Plaintiff is deemed to have waived any privilege between himself and any health care provider who has furnished care to the Plaintiff irrespective of any relevance to the litigation. The Act ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1003 ) leaves the courts with no discretion whatsoever -- a court must either issue an order authorizing the release of all requested records or dismiss the Plaintiffs case pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (a)(9).

33. That the Act ( 735 ILCS 5/8-802 ) unconstitutionally allows and permits the Defendants to solicit the disclosure of any information a health care practitioner may have acquired in attending the Plaintiff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. That the Court find that the Public Act and the specific provisions identified in this complaint, and each of them, are unconstitutional, null and void.

2. That the Court find that the limitation upon recovery for “non-economic damages” is unconstitutional, null and void;

3. That the Court find that the Act's prohibition upon a court instructing a jury upon the maximum recovery for “non-economic damages” is unconstitutional, null and void;

4. That the Court find the Act's prohibition upon a court instructing a jury upon the legal effect of a finding of greater that 50% of comparative fault is unconstitutional, null and void;

5. That the Court find that instructing the jury on the lack of taxability of its verdict is unconstitutional, null and void;

6. That the Court find that the Act's elimination of joint liability is unconstitutional, null and void;

7. That the Court find that the Act's reduction of a defendant's liability, based upon the negligence of a plaintiff's employer, is unconstitutional, null and void;

8. That the Court find that the Act's severability clause (Section 990) is null and void;

9. That the Defendants, Taylor, Helms, and Allied, and each of them, and their respective agents, servants and employees, be enjoined from soliciting from the Plaintiff any authorization for the release of medical information, as described in the 1995 amendment to Section 2-1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 2-1003).

10. That the Defendants, Taylor, Helms, and Allied, and each of them, and their respective agents, servants and employees, be enjoined from soliciting from any healthcare practitioner, except in manners previously allowed before the passage of the Act, the disclosure of any information such practitioner(s) may have acquired in attending the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the Act's amendments to Section 8-802 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 8-802);

11. That the Defendants, Taylor, Helms, and Allied, and each of them, and their respective agents, servants and employees, be enjoined from discussing with any healthcare provider, except in manners previously allowed before the passage of the Act, any information such practitioner(s) may have acquired in attending the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the Act's amendments to Section 8-802 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 8-802);

12. That this Court waive the necessity of the Plaintiffs filing any bond, or in the alternative, that it set a fair and reasonable cost bond for the Plaintiff; and

13. That the Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court shall deem necessary and proper.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY OF TWELVE.

Client Reviews
Jonathan Rosenfeld was professionally objective, timely, and knowledgeable. Also, his advice was extremely effective regarding my case. In addition, Jonathan was understanding and patient pertaining to any of my questions or concerns. I was very happy with the end result and I highly recommend Jonathan Rosenfeld.
★★★★★
Extremely impressed with this law firm. They took control of a bad motorcycle crash that left my uncle seriously injured. Without any guarantee of a financial recovery, they went out and hired accident investigators and engineers to help prove how the accident happened. I am grateful that they worked on a contingency fee basis as there was no way we could have paid for these services on our own. Ethan Armstrong, Google User
★★★★★
This lawyer really helped me get compensation for my motorcycle accident case. I know there is no way that I could have gotten anywhere near the amount that Mr. Rosenfeld was able to get to settle my case. Thank you. Daniel Kaim, Avvo User
★★★★★
Jonathan helped my family heal and get compensation after our child was suffered a life threatening injury at daycare. He was sympathetic and in constant contact with us letting us know all he knew every step of the way. We were so blessed to find Jonathan! Giulia, Avvo User
★★★★★
Jonathan did a great job helping my family navigate through a lengthy lawsuit involving my grandmother's death in a nursing home. Through every step of the case, Jonathan kept my family informed of the progression of the case. Although our case eventually settled at a mediation, I really was impressed at how well prepared Jonathan was to take the case to trial. Lisa, Avvo User
★★★★★
Contact Us for a Free Consultation (888) 424-5757
Chicago Office Map