The Illinois Supreme Court has dealt a blow to lawyers who overreach in lodging personal injury suits in Cook County, because of the county's purported reputation for favoring plaintiffs, saying Cook County isn't the right place for a lawsuit filed over an accident that occurred in Ohio, against defendants who had merely allowed one of their employees to work from home in Cook County.
The defendants had argued allowing the lawsuit to proceed in Cook County would open up Cook County's courts to lawsuits against any company who employed someone who works from home in Chicago or elsewhere in Illinois' most populous county.
The Oct. 22 ruling was delivered by Chief Justice Anne Burke, with concurrence from Justices Rita Garman, Thomas Kilbride, Mary Jane Theis, P. Scott Neville Jr. and Michael Burke. Justice Lloyd Karmeier did not take part.
The decision favored food manufacturer Gilster-Mary Lee and one of its employees, James Cummings, in a negligence suit brought against them by plaintiff Sergiu Tabirta.
In December 2016 in Ohio, a tractor-trailer driven by Tabirta collided with a GML tractor-trailer driven by Cummings. Tabirta lost his legs in the crash.
Tabirta, who lives in Cook County, sued two weeks later in Cook County Circuit Court. Cummings did not live in Cook County and GML is incorporated in Missouri, with its principal offices in downstate Randolph County. GML has food plants in Illinois, but none in Cook County, according to court documents.
Tabirta's lawyers argued the case could be pursued in Cook County, because a part-time GML employee, James Bolton, worked out of his home in the county. Bolton serviced accounts with three retail clients in the Chicago area, only one of which was in Cook County and, of the three clients, spent the least time with the Cook County one, according to court papers.
Cook County is known as a venue friendly to plaintiffs in personal injury suits. Cook County, for instance, routinely lands on the list of so-called "Judicial Hellholes," compiled annually by the American Tort Reform Association, highlighting the country's most litigious local court systems.
Defendants asked the court to allow the lawsuit to be moved to a more appropriate county, preferably Randolph County. They argued that if the suit is allowed to proceed in Cook County, a company could be sued in "any county where any of its agents or employees conduct any work out of their homes," defying the purpose of the Illinois venue law.
Cook County Judge John Ehrlich determined Bolton's home office constituted a bona fide GML office, anchoring the case in Cook County.
On appeal to Illinois First District Appellate Court, that body unanimously affirmed Ehrlich's decision, prompting defendants to visit the state high court.
Chief Justice Burke found no signs Bolton's home operation was an office of GML.
"It is clear from the record that GML did not 'purposely select' a fixed location in Cook County to carry on its business activities," Burke said, partly quoting from a 1999 Third District Appellate Court ruling.
In addition, Burke said Bolton's residence in Cook County was happenstance for GML.
"There is no evidence that it hired Bolton because he lived in Cook County. Furthermore, there is no evidence that GML intended to open an office in Cook County or would have done so had it not hired Bolton. GML hired a person; it did not select a new location for conducting its business activities," Burke pointed out.
Burke continued, noting GML neither produced, advertised or sold products from within Cook County, nor did Bolton sell products from his home. Bolton's work was "merely incidental to GML's usual and customary business of food product manufacturing," with GML having insufficient business volume in the county to conclude the company was "doing business in the county," Burke determined.
Burke ordered Cook County Circuit Judge Ehrlich to move the case to another venue.
Tabirta has been represented by Patricoski Law Offices, of suburban Wheaton.
Cummings and GML have been defended by the St. Louis firm of Roberts Perryman.
The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association filed friend-of-the-court arguments on Tabirta's behalf. The association contended that to let the suit continue in Cook County, would not "open the floodgates to findings that a company will be deemed to have an 'office' in any county where an employee happens to live if the employee chooses to work from home."
Friend-of-the-court arguments were also filed on defendants' behalf by Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel.