X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Recent defense verdicts out of Madison County, Ill., over the past month may be a sign that the county—considered a national haven for plaintiffs’ lawyers—is becoming more hospitable to defendants. “The people of Madison County are moving away from an extremely pro-plaintiffs’ position and moderating back to the center,” said Jeffrey Hebrank, vice president of the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel, and a partner at Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, True & Hebrank in Edwardsville, Ill., who litigated a recent asbestos trial in Madison County. Jurors in Madison County Circuit Court returned two defense verdicts this month: one in an asbestos case against General Electric Co., Gudmundson v. G.E., No. 03-L-538, and the other a medical malpractice trial, Wolfe v. Southwestern Illinois Health FAC. Inc., No. 03L2022. In a third trial in May, Madison County jurors awarded a 78-year-old plaintiff with admitted asbestos-related mesothelioma damages of $50,000-far short of the $50 million that plaintiffs’ lawyers had asked for. King vs. Bondex International, No. 04-L-579. Pressure asserted? Plaintiffs’ lawyers charge that forces have descended on the county to systematically pressure jurors away from awarding money. The heat of a national spotlight, a partisan newspaper published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a visit from President Bush are just some of the factors influencing jurors to think beyond the facts of the case about how their verdict will affect the economy and the county’s reputation, plaintiffs’ attorneys assert. “There are plenty of places in favor of tort reform, but I’ve never tried a case in an environment like that,” said David Greenstone, plaintiff’s counsel in the G.E. trial, which was his first case in Madison County. Greenstone’s firm, Waters & Kraus of Dallas, was lead counsel in the two asbestos cases in Madison County this month. “There seemed to be a number of forces at work trying to keep the verdict down and keep the jury from awarding money,” added Greenstone. G.E.’s defense counsel, John M. Fitzpatrick of LeClair Ryan in Richmond, Va., said asbestos trials have been rare in Madison County, with only about one a year in the last 20 years. Plaintiffs’ lawyers too often expect asbestos defendants to roll over because it’s Madison County, he said. This was G.E.’s first time taking an asbestos case to verdict, and its motion to get the case moved from Madison County was denied in January. “We can always look for excuses, but I tend to think this verdict had nothing to do with the fact that it was filed in Madison County, so much as that it was just an exceptionally weak case,” Fitzpatrick said. Defense lawyer Timothy S. Richards of Neville, Richards & Wuller in Belleville, Ill., who won the medical malpractice verdict, said Madison County jurors were attuned to the facts of his case and not reacting to social pressures. Richards said he spoke with jurors after the verdict. “Basically, they found that the medical defense was convincing,” said Richards. “There was nothing about this idea that we have to do something about a medical malpractice crisis.” Lawyers on both sides say they are still not convinced there was ever anything skewed about Madison County to begin with. But if the defense is on a winning streak, local plaintiffs’ lawyers are not rattled by it. “If you believe all the rhetoric, you would think that defense verdicts didn’t happen in Madison County,” said Brad Lakin of The Lakin Law Firm in Wood River, Ill. Lakin asserted that a lot of money has been spent to present a distorted image of the county. He points to a $43 million plaintiffs’ verdict he won against Ford over a fuel tank explosion in April as evidence that jurors in Madison County can quickly swing the other way. Jablonski v. Ford, No. 03-L-2-O-27. Ed Murnane, of the the Illinois Civil Justice League, which advocates tort reform on behalf of member insurance companies and medical providers, said changes are under way in Madison County, and both sides are right about them. The pendulum is swinging, he said, because jurors are paying more attention. “People in Madison County are tired of living in a jurisdiction that has been subjected to ridicule,” Murnane said. “It’s appropriate for jurors to ask questions about how far they should go and has the system here been going too far.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.