THE HORWITZ LAW GROUP | CHICAGO PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS | IF WE DON’T WIN YOUR CASE, OUR SERVICES ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE

The Horwitz Law Group | 312.641.9200 | mark@thehorwitzlawgroup.com

PRESS RELEASE

Chicago Law Firm Settles Metra Derailment Case for $2.1 Million

CHICAGO -

Mark J. Horwitz of The Horwitz Law Group of Chicago has settled the case of Marie Bullock v. Metra

for $2,100,000. This was one of the last of the injury cases from a commuter train derailment in

September 2005 that killed two passengers and injured over 100. Metra and its insurer contested the

nature and extent of Ms. Bullock’s severe injuries, which included a fractured fibula. Mark Horwitz of

The Horwitz Law Group enlisted expert medical testimony on Ms. Bullock’s behalf to bring about the

settlement.

On September 17, 2005, a Metra train sped through a track crossing at excessive speed and derailed near

47th Street in Chicago. The crash killed two people, injured 117, and led to over 150 lawsuits.

One of those suits was Marie Bullock’s. Ms. Bullock suffered a fractured fibula that required three

surgeries and two extensive follow-up procedures. Her case also involved claims of post traumatic stress

disorder and complex regional pain syndrome. Mark J. Horwitz of The Horwitz Law Group brought the

suit on behalf of Ms. Bullock.

Metra and its insurer admitted fault, but contested the nature and extent of Bullock’s injuries. Much of the

ensuing litigation involved competing expert testimony. Specifically, the defense hired a psychiatrist,

seeking to show that Ms. Bullock did not suffer from PTSD. The defense also hired a doctor, seeking to

disprove the CRPS/RSD claims.

To make Marie Bullock’s case, the Horwitz Law Group used Dr. Edward Mahoney, plaintiff’s treating

psychologist, to testify that Ms. Bullock had a video in her head of the horrific sights and sounds she

experienced during the crash that would never go away. Mark Horwitz also hired a life care planner who

conferred with her current physiatrist to come up with Ms. Bullock’s future medical and home

improvement needs given the fact that Ms. Bullock suffered from a permanent ankle injury. Plaintiff’s

attorney Mark J. Horwitz also succeeded in showing that one of the defendant’s medical experts, who

later became Ms. Bullock’s treating doctor and testified that she would only be limited to “walk around

Disney World for the day,” had allowed his physician’s assistant to sign a form from the Illinois Secretary

of State entitling Ms. Bullock to a permanent handicap placard. This application for a permanent handicap

placard clearly showed that the doctor was far overreaching in his expectations for Ms. Bullock’s

recovery.

Throughout the extensive pre-trial process, the Horwitz Law Group provided tenacious legal

representation for Marie Bullock – and after motions in limine had been ruled upon, Metra agreed to settle

the case for $2.1 million. This was the largest settlement for any of the plaintiffs other than the two

fatalities and a verdict that was reached by a Cook County jury regarding one passenger who was left in a

near quadriplegic state.

The Illinois Tort Immunity Act and the Death of Michael Langford, Jr.

THE HORWITZ LAW GROUP | CHICAGO PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS | IF WE DON’T WIN YOUR CASE, OUR SERVICES ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE

The Horwitz Law Group | 312.641.9200 | mark@thehorwitzlawgroup.com

On Mother’s Day 2010, Kathie LaFond worked a double shift, getting off of work at approximately

11:45. After leaving work, she went home and went to bed. Sometime thereafter, she received a call from

friends of her boyfriend Cecil Conner. Those friends asked that Ms. LaFond come to pick Cecil Conner

up because he was heavily intoxicated and needed to be taken home. Ms. LaFond got dressed and drove

to pick up Mr. Conner. She placed her five year old son, Michael Langford Jr., in his car seat and drove to

pick Mr. Conner up from the party.

After picking up Mr. Conner from the party, Ms. LaFond was in the process of driving to Mr. Conner’s

house when a Chicago Heights’ Police Officer pulled her over for failing to use a turn signal. That officer

then asked for her license, which she was unable to produce. The officer called his dispatcher and

discovered that Ms. LaFond’s driver’s license was suspended. The officer then came back to the car and

placed Ms. LaFond under arrest.

Instantly, Ms. LaFond pleaded with the office to allow her to take her baby home, as he was still sleeping

in the back seat. She also told the officer that she was the designated driver and that Mr. Conner was

intoxicated. The Chicago Police officer refused her request and told her that her baby would be fine. He

then placed Ms. LaFond in his squad car and gave custody and control of the vehicle she was driving to

Mr. Conner.

Approximately 35 minutes later, Mr. Conner crashed the car containing Michael Langford, Jr. into a tree.

The impact broke Michael’s neck, which killed him. This accident occurred in Steger, Illinois, which is

adjacent to Chicago Heights. Immediately, the police in Steger noticed that Mr. Conner had slurred

speech and an odor of alcohol on his person.

A blood-alcohol test showed Conner’s level to be .208 – more than twice the legal limit – and he may also

have been using marijuana. Authorities have charged him with multiple counts of driving under the

influence of alcohol or drugs.

Lawsuit

A lawsuit brought by the Horwitz Law Group on behalf of Kathie LaFond alleges that Chicago Heights

police failed to take proper steps to protect Michael Langford. Instead of impounding the car and taking

the helpless 5-year-old boy into protective custody, the police officer allegedly ordered a drunken

passenger to drive the boy home. Chicago Heights claims that Kathie LaFond gave verbal permission for

police to leave the child with Cecil Conner. But whether such permission was actually given is very much

in dispute.

Chicago Heights has filed a motion to dismiss LaFond’s lawsuit, based on the Illinois Local Government

and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. The Tort Immunity Act protects government agencies

and their employees from liability for actions taken in their official capacity, as long as those actions were

not corrupt or malicious, or showed willful and wanton disregard for human life.

In the Langford case, the police officer made a decision with fatal consequences. He decided to not take

Michael Langford into protective custody or provide an escort home after his mother’s arrest, but instead

to give the car keys to a passenger who may have been visibly intoxicated. The city argues that this was a

THE HORWITZ LAW GROUP | CHICAGO PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS | IF WE DON’T WIN YOUR CASE, OUR SERVICES ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE

The Horwitz Law Group | 312.641.9200 | mark@thehorwitzlawgroup.com

valid exercise of official discretion, because police officers need to make quick decisions on the spot.

They have to be available to respond to the numerous public safety concerns that arise in a large urban

area. More specifically, the city argues that the passenger to whom its police officer entrusted the car was

not visibly intoxicated.

Willful and Wanton Misconduct

The counterargument is clear. If the person to whom the officer entrusted the car was visibly intoxicated,

it was not a valid exercise of discretion to order that person to drive the car home with a sleeping 5-year-

old child strapped in the back seat. Such conduct, LaFond’s lawsuit argues, amounts to willful and

wanton disregard for human life. This provides an exception to the protections law enforcement officers

and agencies normally receive under the Tort Immunity Act.

The courts have made clear that the immunity protection given to government agencies and employees is

not unlimited. Indeed, the courts have said that the Tort Immunity Act must be strictly construed, because

it is an exception to the broad protections that the common law generally provides for injured people to

hold wrongdoers accountable.

In the Langford case, the burden of proof is therefore on Chicago Heights to show that its police officer

exercised proper discretion in letting a passenger drive a child home after his mother’s arrest. In legal

terms, this is called an affirmative defense.

“Willful and wanton” misconduct is not merely a good-faith mistake. It involves a reckless disregard for

the rights of another – in this case, arguably, disregard by the police officer for the safety of Michael

Langford, Jr., the 5-year-old in the back seat. The court will rule soon on whether the wrongful death case

brought by his mother against Chicago Heights may go forward.

For more information about Horwitz Law Group, visit the firm’s website or call 312-641-9200