Madison Record -

Woman shot in face while singing karaoke sues

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:00:00 CST

A woman claims she was shot in the face by an intoxicated patron who was removed from a Granite City bar.

Nina Adams filed a lawsuit Jan. 30 in Madison County Circuit Court against Darrell G. Buettner, Inn Between Taverns, Larry G. Lowe, Luna Properties II and Larry Wofford.

In her complaint, Adams alleges she was shot in the head while singing karaoke inside the Luna Cafe on Feb. 4, 2011. The bullet that struck Adams had been discharged from Buettner's gun as he was standing outside the bar, according to the complaint.

Immediately before he fired the shot, Buettner had been escorted from the Luna Cafe to its parking lot, the suit states.

"After being moved from inside the tavern building to outside the tavern building, Darrell G. Buettner, from outside the tavern building, intentionally aimed and discharged a firearm in the direction of the aforementioned Luna Cafe tavern building with the intention of harming individuals inside of the tavern building," the complaint says.

Because of the attack, Adams claims she sustained severe and permanent injuries, suffered great pain and anguish and incurred medical costs.

Adams blames the bars for allowing Buettner to shoot her, saying they negligently failed to contact police to remove Buettner from the facility, failed to remove Buettner from the parking lot and areas near the bar and failed to employ necessary security personnel to protect against intoxicated patrons.

In her 10-count complaint, Adams seeks a judgment of more than $350,000, plus other relief the court deems just.

Brad G. Pelc of Pelc Law Office in Belleville will be representing her.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-129.

Club Peek-a-Boo owners sued over patron's fatal shooting

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:55:00 CST

Yandle

The owners of Club Peek-a-Boo are accused of failing to protect a man shot to death inside the St. Clair County nightclub.

Tamareka Cook, special administrator of the estate of Shontez T. Ellis, filed a lawsuit against Andrea Garrett and Madison Garrett doing business as Club Peek-a-Boo. The complaint was filed Jan. 20 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

Cook is the court-appointed special administrator of the estate of Shontez T. Ellis who died Jan. 19, 2011, according to the complaint. Ellis was allegedly shot and killed while at Club Peek-a-Boo on South Third Street in Brooklyn.

Cook says the Garretts owned and managed the nightclub and, therefore, had a duty to provide safe and secure premises and to "reasonably guard against wrongful and criminal acts against patrons when such acts were reasonably foreseeable to the defendants."

The court-appointed administrator says Ellis was shot multiple times by an unknown assailant while visiting Club Peek-a-Boo. She accuses the Garretts of negligently and carelessly failing to protect Ellis from the attack. Cook says the nightclub owners should have known Ellis was in danger because of previous criminal acts allegedly committed at Club Peek-a-Boo, including prior shootings.

Cook claims the Garretts were also negligent for failing to eject and remove the shooter before the incident with Ellis. She says, as a direct result of the club owners' failure to act, Ellis' family has suffered grief and sorrow and has been deprived of companionship.

Cook is asking to be awarded more than $50,000 on behalf of Ellis' estate.

Attorney Staci M. Yandle of O'Fallon is representing her. They request a jury trial.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 12-L-39

Kienstra Precast sued over subcontractor's work site injuries

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:52:00 CST

A Madison County concrete company is being sued by a subcontractor who says he was hurt by one of its trucks on a Wood River job site.

Robert J. Williamson Sr. filed a lawsuit Jan. 30 in Madison County Circuit Court against Kienstra Precast LLC.

Williamson says he was working as a subcontractor for an industrial construction company at ConocoPhillips Wood River refinery in October 2011. He says he was pouring concrete delivered by Kienstra Precast when the driver allegedly pulled the concrete truck forward with the chute still extended. Williamson says the movement of the chute caused him to be pinned him against a building and then dragged.

Williamson says he injured his neck, chest, shoulders and back in the incident and has required ongoing, extensive medical treatment. He accuses Kienstra Precast and its employees of negligence and asks for more than $75,000 in damages for those medical bills, lost income and court fees.

Attorney Thomas Q. Keefe Jr. of Belleville is representing Williamson.

Madison County Circuit Court case No. 12-L-127

Plastex Enterprises sued over $220K debt

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:49:00 CST

An Alton plastics company is accused of owing more than $220,000 to another plastics provider from Michigan.

Total Plastics Inc. filed a lawsuit against Plastex Enterprises Inc. on Feb. 1 in Madison County Circuit Court.

Total Plastics claims it provided goods and services worth more than $221,000 to Plastex Enterprise in April 2011. However, Total Plastics accuses the defendant of not paying what it owes and asks to be awarded the balance, plus interest and court costs.

Total Plastics is represented by attorneys Vincent D. Vogler and David J. Page of St. Louis.

Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 12-L-140

Trackman claims multiple injuries in suit against Norfolk Southern

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:44:00 CST

A Madison County man who says he was hurt by decades of work on a railroad wants his former employer to pay him more than $50,000 for the injuries.

James P. Goble filed a lawsuit Jan. 31 in Madison County Circuit Court against Norfolk Southern Railway Company.

According to the complaint, Goble worked as a trackman for Norfolk Southern Railway from 1980 until 2012. In the more than 30 years he spent repairing the railroad tracks, Goble says he was subjected to multiple injuries to his neck, wrists and body -- all of which, he claims, caused him "great pain and mental anguish."

Goble says the injuries also caused him to lose money over the years.

He accuses Norfolk Southern of negligence for allegedly failing to provide safe working conditions that he says would have avoided the injuries and the related costs. He is asking for more than $50,000 in damages.

Attorney Gregory M. Tobin of East Alton is representing Goble.

Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 12-L-131

Glen Carbon property owner sues State Farm over fire loss

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:41:00 CST

A man has filed suit against his insurance company after he claims it refuses to pay him for damages caused to his home during a fire.

Richard Ramirez claims his home at 2233 Wild Wood Drive in Glen Carbon was destroyed by a fire on May 16. At the time of the fire, Ramirez had an insurance policy through defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, according to the complaint filed Jan. 27 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

Ramirez requested a reimbursement for the more than $400,000 worth of damages caused to his home, but State Farm has allegedly refused to pay him, the suit states.

Because of its unreasonable delay, State Farm owes Ramirez an extra 60 percent of his loss, the complaint says.

In his complaint, Ramirez is seeking a judgment of $640,000, plus attorney's fees and costs.

Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and Urban in Belleville will be representing him.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-54.

Arrowhead worker stepped on nail; Employer failed to pay for medical bills, suit says

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:34:00 CST

Szewczyk

A man claims his employer fired him following its refusal to pay for medical bills he incurred after stepping on a nail while working.

Daniel J. Byrd filed a lawsuit Jan. 30 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Arrowhead Building Supply.

In his complaint, Byrd alleges he was working for Arrowhead on Sept. 20, 2011, when he stepped on a nail.

After seeking medical treatment at St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Byrd requested Arrowhead pay for the medical bills he incurred because of the incident, according to the complaint. However, the company refused to do so, the suit states.

Because of his repeated requests for reimbursement and his threats to take legal action, Byrd claims he was fired on Nov. 7.

Due to his termination, Byrd suffered embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, pain and suffering and lost wages, according to the complaint.

In his suit, Byrd seeks a judgment of more than $50,000 but less than $75,000, plus damages and costs.

Edward J. Szewczyk of Callis, Papa, Hale and Szewczyk in Granite City will be representing him.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-57.

Union Pacific did not include witness testimony; Fifth District reverses St. Clair County verdict

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:18:00 CST

Wexstten

A former railroad worker who was allegedly hurt while working for Union Pacific Railroad Company is allowed a new trial for knee injuries he sustained on the job, the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois ruled Friday.

Justices James M. Wexstten, Richard P. Goldenhersh and Melissa A. Chapman found that Kenneth Bradshaw, a brakeman, switchman and conductor for defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company from 1960 until 2003, proved that the railroad's attorneys violated an Illinois Supreme Court rule when they called forth two witnesses without including their planned testimonies in depositions.

Bradshaw filed a lawsuit on May 8, 2006, against Union Pacific after he claims he developed bilateral osteoarthritis in his knees due to repetitive stress caused from his work activities. Because of his injuries, Bradshaw underwent knee replacements in both of his knees.

In his complaint, Bradshaw claimed his knee conditions were caused because of his job, which required him to jump from moving locomotives onto uneven surfaces.

A jury initially returned a verdict in favor of Union Pacific. However, the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois reversed that ruling in part on Friday and remanded the case to St. Clair County Circuit Court.

The justices found that the defendants failed to comply with an Illinois Supreme Court rule that mandates attorneys to reveal any controlled expert witnesses they plan to interrogate during a trial. Lawyers must identify the witnesses in written interrogatories.

Attorneys for Union Pacific failed to disclose the conclusions or opinions that the expert witnesses planned to present during the trial, although they did identify the two men as expert witnesses and described the general subject matter intended to be discussed during the trial, Wexstten wrote in the opinion for the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois.

"It is not as if the defendant failed to disclose these two expert witnesses at all and then sought to ambush the plaintiff during trial by attempting to put them on the stand," Wexstten wrote. "Yet, because the defendant's Rule 213 disclosures failed to reveal any conclusions or opinions of these two intended expert witnesses, it is fair to say that the plaintiff may have been surprised by the extent of their testimony. It is also fair to assume that the plaintiff may not have been able to effectively cross-examine these two expert witnesses, given that their conclusions and opinions remained unknown."

Because St. Clair County Associate Judge Vincent Lopinot did not adequately reprimand Union Pacific's attorneys and because it allowed the testimony of the expert witnesses, justices for the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois remanded the case.

The justices, however, refused to remand the case for any other reasons brought forth by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, for example, argued that the court erred when it failed to adequately instruct the jury of his claim under the Locomotive Inspection Act. The act states that railroads may require their employees to work on only safe equipment. Bradshaw contended the speed of the locomotive was not safe and led to his knee injuries, but justices disagreed.

"Nothing from either the plain language of the LIA itself or germane case law supports an interpretation that the liability under the LIA arises from the manner in which a railroad locomotive is operated," Wexstten wrote. "As such, we find that the trial court did not err in refusing the plaintiff's proposed jury instructions with regard to count II of his amended complaint."

Bradshaw contended that Lopinot also wrongly allowed testimony regarding his wages. He argued that the testimony swayed jurors to believe that he made enough money to assume the risks associated with the job. Justices again sided with Union Pacific on the issue.

"Reviewing the testimony at issue, we do not agree with the plaintiff's assertion that it constitutes improper assumption of risk evidence, especially in light of the fact that nothing in the record indicates that assumption of risk was ever raised or implied by the defendant as an affirmative defense during trial," Wexstten wrote.

Union Pacific handed the jury highlighted texts during its deliberation, which Bradshaw claims should not have been allowed because it emphasized rules that seemingly place all responsibility for safety on the employees. Justices on the Fifth District Appellate Court say the text was appropriate.

"Because the highlighted portions of the text in defendant's exhibits O, P and Q were actually read to the jury, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing these exhibits to be submitted to the jury and certainly, such action does not rise to the level of reversible error," Wexstten wrote.

Finally, Bradshaw claims Lopinot should have allowed four pieces of evidence into testimony, which included all repetitive injury claims filed against the railroad from 1980 until now. The evidence, which was not permitted during the trial, would have shown the numerous injuries many of Union Pacific's workers sustained throughout their employment, Bradshaw contended.

Justices, however, ruled that the injuries outlined in the evidence were not similar to Bradshaw's knee problems. Therefore, refusal to admit the evidence was permissible.

"The exhibits at issue are too varied in the location and description of the accident site and/or the nature of the injury allegedly arising therefrom," Wexstten wrote. "Even if these exhibits were admitted as 'dissimilar prior accidents' to show that the defendant had notice of the hazardous nature of uneven ballast or of dismounting moving locomotives, this evidence would not be per se indicative of the need to establish an ergonomics program."

Fifth District Appellate Court case number: 5-10-554.

Madison County Asbestos Jury Docket: Tuesday, Feb. 14

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:35:00 CST

9 a.m.

CONLEY LEROY V. CRANE CO
10-L-000267, ASBESTOS JU 311

HASKE RAYMOND V. 3M COMPANY FKA MINNESOTA MININ
10-L-000569, ASBESTOS JU 311

BAGSBY THOMAS E V. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
10-L-000649, ASBESTOS JU 311

JOHNSON JEANINE INDIVIDUALLY V. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
10-L-000735, ASBESTOS JU 311

BUCHARD EUGENE V. 3M COMPANY FKA MINNESOTA MININ
10-L-000815, ASBESTOS JU 311

WHEELER SHIRLEY A V. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY NKA
10-L-001008, ASBESTOS JU 311

KEENEY GEORGE J INDIVIDUALLY V. BORG WARNER CORPORATION BY ITS
10-L-001045, ASBESTOS JU 311

FLEGE JAMES L V. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATI
10-L-001102, ASBESTOS JU 311

BURNETTE RONALD B V. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEM CORPORATIO
10-L-001151, ASBESTOS JU 311

SPENCER CORA E V. 3M COMPANY FKA MINNESOTA MININ
11-L-000141, ASBESTOS JU 311

VOGEL AUGUST C V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
11-L-000177, ASBESTOS JU 311

CAPETILLO BARBARA A V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC
11-L-000254, ASBESTOS JU 311

SIMPSON THOMAS F V. AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP SU
11-L-000013, ASBESTOS JU 311

WARD TERRY INDIVIDUALLY V. OLIN CORPORATION
10-L-000454, ASBESTOS JU 311

MCGOVNEY MILDRED E INDIVIDUALL V. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
10-L-000535, ASBESTOS JU 311

KARPENKO VICTORIA V. AII ACQUISITION CORP FKA HOLLA
10-L-000588, ASBESTOS JU 311

HART GWENDLYN INDIVIDUALLY V. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
10-L-000602, ASBESTOS JU 311

MARTIN ROBERT V. CRANE CO
10-L-001128, ASBESTOS JU 311

RAYBURN MARY ANNE INDIVIDUALLY V. CRANE CO
10-L-001142, ASBESTOS JU 311

RODGERS KAREN M V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
11-L-000032, ASBESTOS JU 311

THOMAS RICHARD L V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
11-L-000040, ASBESTOS JU 311

DORLAQUE JOHN G V. ACF INDUSTRIES LLC AS SUC/INT
11-L-000047, ASBESTOS JU 311

TATE LOWELL E V. DAP PRODUCTS INC
10-L-000786, ASBESTOS JU 311

LAMKE KAREN INDIVIDUALLY V. BONDEX INTERNATIONAL INC
10-L-000339, ASBESTOS JU 311

Madison County Asbestos Motion Docket: Feb. 15

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:31:00 CST

Wednesday, Feb. 15

10 am

MORTON DONALD V. AW CHESTERTON INC
08-L-001058, ASBESTOS J 311

GABELHAUS WESLEY V. AW CHESTERTON INC
09-L-000231, ASBESTOS J 311

WAGGONER DARRELL V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-001099, ASBESTOS J 311

STOCKER DONALD V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
11-L-000197, ASBESTOS J 311

SMITH JOHN V. AH BENNETT COMPANY
11-L-000004, ASBESTOS J 311

LAFFERTY JAMES V. A W CHESTERTON INC
07-L-000738, ASBESTOS J 311

MITCHELL CARLETIES V. AW CHESTERTON INC
09-L-000481, ASBESTOS J 311

MCGRATH PATRICK V. AW CHESTERTON INC
09-L-000753, ASBESTOS J 311

SYMBER JEROME F V. A W CHESTERTON INC
09-L-000895, ASBESTOS J 311

DORGAN ALBERT V. AW CHESTERTON INC
09-L-001095, ASBESTOS J 311

WHITBECK GERALD V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
09-L-001365, ASBESTOS J 311

AGNEY THOMAS V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000503, ASBESTOS J 311

SIMPKINS ANNETTE V. A W CHESTERTON INC
07-L-000062, ASBESTOS J 311

BONZANI MELISSA INDIVIDUALLY V. A W CHESTERTON INC
08-L-000200, ASBESTOS J 311

BLACK TIMMY V. A W CHESTERTON INC
09-L-001242, ASBESTOS J 311

PATTAS ANTONIOS V. AH BENNETT COMPANY
10-L-000441, ASBESTOS J 311

BOLLIGER DONALD V. AO SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000513, ASBESTOS J 311

WHITE ROBERT V. AH BENNETT COMPANY
10-L-000816, ASBESTOS J 311

BRADFORD DAVID V. 3M COMPANY
10-L-000885, ASBESTOS J 311

LITAWAY MICHAEL V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000074, ASBESTOS J 311

PAULK JERRI INDIVIDUALLY V. COOPER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO
10-L-000164, ASBESTOS J 311

WILLIAMS URAL V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000183, ASBESTOS J 311

PARKER ROBERT CO TRUSTEE OF ES V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000231, ASBESTOS J 311

KNUDSON DIANE V. AH BENNETT COMPANY
10-L-000285, ASBESTOS J 311

KNOTEK HOWARD V. AO SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000300, ASBESTOS J 311

HARRIS WILLIAM V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000351, ASBESTOS J 311

RYAN JOSEPH JR INDIVIDUALLY V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000448, ASBESTOS J 311

PETERKA LADDIE V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000450, ASBESTOS J 311

CAWVEY MARY INDIVIDUALLY V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000452, ASBESTOS J 311

HARVEY CHARLES V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000453, ASBESTOS J 311

BURTON LEONA V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000455, ASBESTOS J 311

GAFFNEY RICHARD V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000463, ASBESTOS J 311

O'DONNELL JOHN C V. AO SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000477, ASBESTOS J 311

SHELLEBY ROBERT V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000486, ASBESTOS J 311

JOYCE KELLY D V. AO SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000501, ASBESTOS J 311

ANDRADE ROBERTO JR INDIVIDUALL V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000505, ASBESTOS J 311

MOSBY SAUNDRA INDIVIDUALLY V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000039, ASBESTOS J 311

GABEL ROSEMARY INDIVIDUALLY V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000506, ASBESTOS J 311

GRISHAM JOYCE INDIVIDUALLY V. A W CHESTERTON
10-L-000509, ASBESTOS J 311

AHLRICH MARY INDIVIDUALLY V. A W CHESTERTON INC
09-L-000280, ASBESTOS J 311

HICKS BILLY INDIVIDUALLY V. AW CHESTERTON INC
08-L-001164, ASBESTOS J 311

SCHAUER WILLARD V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000540, ASBESTOS J 311

VICARS JUDITH V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000554, ASBESTOS J 311

RIVENBARK RUBEN V. AO SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000571, ASBESTOS J 311

AMBROSE JEFFREY INDIVIDUALLY V. AW CHESTERTON INC
09-L-000873, ASBESTOS J 311

DOEKES PATRICIA INDIVIDUALLY V. A O SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000609, ASBESTOS J 311

DIUGUID LARRY V. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000619, ASBESTOS J 311

RITCH DEANNE V. A W CHESTERTON INC
09-L-000312, ASBESTOS J 311

BAUER DONALD V. A SCHULMAN INC
10-L-000620, ASBESTOS J 311

URISH LARRY V. AO SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000622, ASBESTOS J 311

THURMAN BERNARD V. AO SMITH CORPORATION
10-L-000638, ASBESTOS J 311

DVORSCAK ROSITA INDIVIDUALLY V. A W CHESTERTON COMPANY
10-L-000642, ASBESTOS J 311