In June 2003, there was a tragic porch collapse at an apartment building in Chicago; 13 people were killed and at least 50 more were injured. The quest for deep pockets began; as we discussed in August 2005, even though the porch was on private property, trial lawyers aimed their litigation guns at the city of Chicago, on the theory that Chicago taxpayers have more money than the building owner if city inspectors had done a better job, the accident wouldn’t have happened.
A trial judge bought that argument, but yesterday, in a victory for taxpayers, an appellate court reversed that ruling, holding that, contrary to the theory of the trial lawyers, the city is not a guarantor that nothing bad will ever happen within its city limits. The mere fact that the city inspectors failed to issue violation notices for the porch construction does not make the city financially liable for the collapse; if it did, then the potential to extend liability to taxpayers would be limited only by the imagination of the trial lawyer. Police fail to stop a driver who’s speeding, and he later hits you? Blame the city. Inspectors don’t make your neighbor cut down the dead tree on his property, and it falls on your house during a storm? Blame the city. The possibilities are endless.
The victims of the accident do have a legitimate case — but that legitimate case is against the building landlord, not taxpayers. But those deep pockets aren’t quite deep enough, so the trial lawyers aren’t satisfied with that answer:
But plaintiffs’ lawyers said that was not enough.
Pappas and his companies have about $17 million in insurance coverage, said Terry Ekl, who represents the family of Robert Koranda, who died in the collapse.
“Without the City of Chicago in the case, these families are not going to get anywhere near fair compensation,” Ekl said.
If the Appellate Court’s ruling stands, the plaintiffs would take up the issue with state lawmakers, Murphy said.
“We’re going to be having our clients go down to the legislature and say, ‘You can’t be letting this happen,’ ” Murphy said. “These children cannot have died or be injured in vain.’
Yep; they’re not doing it for their own bank accounts; rather, this is For the Children™.
4 Comments
It’s too bad that Breck-girl John Edwards isn’t available to litigate this case. He most certainly could let the children speak through him…he’d feel their presence…he’d gladly help the tax payers separate with their money…he’d send a strong message to the building inspectors that they should have done a better job…he’d buy another multi-million dollar ranch in N.C.
“Without the City of Chicago in the case, these families are not going to get anywhere near fair compensation,” Ekl said.
Is this a slip? He actually says that it’s about the money.
Chicago requires particularly heavy porch construction (this is a relatively new law). I’ve always thought it was some bizarre kickback by a politician who had a brother in the porch industry, but perhaps it was in response to this.
As a North Carolina doctor, I am chuckling over your “Breck-girl” comment, Todd (and am relieved that not everyone is buying into the “I only care about the poor” myth that both Edwardes peddle).
“It’s for the children” is a common argument . . . not just for lawyers, but for politicians:
http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/07/keeping-local-patients-on-plantation.html