Sometimes, the case has to be tried. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

When I evaluate personal injury cases, my initial assessment involves two primary questions: 1) is there a serious injury and 2) can I prove liability against the defendants. I would like to say that every injury case sitting in my file cabinets is a million dollar case. But that isn’t the case. Some of my files feature serious injuries[sadly sometimes including death] but the liability picture is very weak. And some cases have very provable liability but the injury is not one that would get the average Cook County juror particularly worked up. When a significant verdict is unlikely, my practice is to explain that to the client well ahead of trial. Most of the time, the clients tell me they understand and then instruct me that I am to accept any reasonable settlement offer. And in virtually all cases with reputable insurance carriers, an offer will eventually be made. I convey the offer to the client with my thoughts. More often than not, the client decides to settle before trial, thinking that even a modest recovery, is better than a Not Guilty.

A couple of months ago, however, things did not go as I had anticipated. I represented a nice young woman who had been injured after falling due to a large defect in a public sidewalk. Unfortunately, she delayed a bit before coming to see me, and, in the interim, the area of the occurrence had been substantially modified. We didn’t have very good evidence of the actual defect. And as discovery moved forward, the defendant[a self-insured municipality] uncovered some statements that my client had made that raised some doubt about precisely where she had fallen. I have tried enough slip and falls to know that juries don’t like them. It is virtually impossible to keep property owners off juries. There are normally at least one or two jurors looking across the courtroom at the defendant thinking “That could be me.” I advised my client of these difficulties as the case unfolded. When the trial date was set, I called her into my office. I explained that her previous statements were going to be admitted. And that the defendant would use them to suggest that she was lying about how and where the incident occurred. I told her a Not Guilty was not only possible, but probable. She sat quietly for a minute, and then asked if it was too late to settle. I explained that the municipality in question aggressively tried these types of cases and to date, no offer had been made.

“So we will have to go to trial?'” she asked.

“Looks like it,” I replied. She thanked me and left.

Two weeks before trial however, an offer was made. It wasn’t much of an offer, but it was a start. And, over the next 10 days or so, the amount on the table moved up. On the eve of trial, defense counsel called, and made her final offer. Given that we were looking at very weak liability on a slip and fall, the final number was larger than I expected. At the same time however, it was nowhere near enough to compensate my client for a surgically repaired ankle and continuing pain and discomfort. I called my client to advise of the final offer.

“I went through alot, Mr. Loftus,” she began. “That simply isn’t enough.”

And I explained to her that I agreed – that the offer wasn’t enough. I also reiterated that it was a tough case. She needed to understand no guarantees could be made and there was a very real possibility of a defense verdict.

“I understand,” she said. “Let’s try it.”

“Good deal. I will be in touch – we need to go over your testimony before trial.” I was pleased she had agreed to try the case. Her ankle was only going to get worse over time. And the offer didn’t reflect that reality.

Our case got assigned out and we agreed on a trial judge. The evidence was largely uncontested and things moved quickly. Unfortunately, my client was nervous on the stand and stumbled a bit during her direct exam. And the defendant got the conflicting statements in, as I had anticipated. I knew where things were headed. After closing arguments I told the client the jury was going to return a defense verdict. And not quite 2.5 hours later, the jury did.

Both of us were disappointed, but neither one of us were surprised. We knew it was a tough case. My client made an informed decision, with my help, to try the case to a jury of her peers. We got our evidence in. And the jury decided against us. That is how things work.

Sometimes cases need to go to a jury. You won’t win all the time. No one does. But you will know you did all that you could for the client.

By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
German Conglomerate makes a bid to end Roundup litigation 
By Mark Loftus February 17, 2026
By Mark Loftus February 3, 2026
THE ILLINOIS GENDER VIOLENCE ACT - IN A NUTSHELL Under the Illinois Gender Violence Act (GVA) 740 IlCS 82/1, victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and other forms of gender related violence can bring civil actions against perpetrators even when criminal charges are not filed. The GVA defines two of the four acts of “gender violence” - though the definitions are a bit convoluted: One or or more acts of violence of physical aggression satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois that are committed, at least in part, on the basis of a person’s sex; A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions satisfying the elements of battery under the laws of Illinois, whether or nor the act or acts resulted in criminal charges, prosecution or conviction. Under the Illinois Criminal Code, a person commits a battery when he or she knowingly, without legal justification, causes bodily harm or makes insulting/provoking physical contact with another individual. 720 ILCS 5/12-3. The Criminal Code requires physical contact. AND EMPLOYERS MAY NOW FACE LIABILITY In July, 2023 an amendment made it explicit that the GVA does extend to the workplace. As set forth in the Act, an employer is liable for gender-related violence in the workplace by an employee when the interaction arises out of and in the course of employment. Liability will only arise however, if the (1) the employee was directly performing his or her duties and the violence was the proximate cause of the injury or (2) while the agent of the employer was directly involved in the gender-related violence and the performance of the work was the proximate cause of the injury. Liability will only extend to the the employer however if it can be shown that (1) the employer failed to supervise, train or monitor the offending employee or 2) the employer failed to investigate and respond to reports directly provided to appropriate management personnel. Damages under the Act may include injunctive relief, and actual damages, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. And importantly, the GVA is a fee-shifting statute - so a successful plaintiff may seek to recover attorneys fees. So, in cases of sexual harassment, may a plaintiff, include a count for damages under the GVA? The answer is an unqualified yes. And the contact need not be excessive or dramatic or prolonged - so long as there was no consent nor any justification for the physical contact. In fact, the Act notes that a legitimate threat that the harasser will commit an nonconsensual act is sufficient.
Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.