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.

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.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.