What the Martin v. Layman Decision Adds

Illinois’ Fourth District Appellate Court’s decision in Martin v. Layman[1] continues a line of Illinois cases that closely examine whether hospital consent forms effectively disclaim apparent agency in emergency care settings. Relying in part on the First District’s reasoning in Brayboy v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp.,[2] the court held that the existence of a signed consent form did not resolve the issue as a matter of law when questions remained regarding the language and structure of the form, the patient’s neurological condition, the timing of the disclosure, and whether the…
Continue Reading Beyond the Signature: Context, Timing, and Continued Judicial Scrutiny of Hospital Consent Forms in Apparent Agency Claims

The Case

Wilkinson v. Farmers Holding Companies involved a dispute under a Missouri statute about an employee’s post-termination rights to a “service letter” stating the nature and duration of his service. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the company based on the company’s argument that it was not the actual employer. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed only the procedural law regarding summary judgment and plaintiff’s failure to abide by the procedures of Rule 74.04 in responding to summary judgment.

In particular, the Court noted that although the Plaintiff’s “point relied on” argued that summary judgment is an extreme and…
Continue Reading ITT at 33: Granting Summary Judgment in Missouri is Still Not “Extreme or Drastic”

Using Deposition Testimony to Secure Summary Judgment

In asbestos products liability matters, motions for summary judgment are a standard part of case workup. Although summary judgment is an extreme measure that’s rarely granted, a recent Cook County case (Paul Enright, Special Administrator of the Estate of Susan Enright v. A.O. Smith Corp., et al.) demonstrates it is possible.

Summary judgment motions focus on case-specific facts and often rely on deposition testimony from the plaintiff and fact witnesses. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the defense in Enright argued that plaintiff had not met her evidentiary burden and thus the case…
Continue Reading Building the Record: How Depositions Shape Summary Judgment Orders

Case Background

Marsha J. Martin filed an amended complaint[1] alleging that she received an e-mail that appeared to be from Coastal Customs Builders requesting payment for construction services provided to her. Martin further alleged that, unbeknownst to her at the time, Coastal Customs’ e-mail had been hacked. Martin ultimately wire transferred funds to the hacker’s account at Fifth Third Bank. The hacker then withdrew the funds and transferred them elsewhere. According to Martin, Fifth Third Bank was unable to recover the funds that were wired.

Under a theory of negligence, Martin alleged that Fifth Third Bank knew the hacker…
Continue Reading Not My Customer, Not My Problem? Assessing Whether a Duty May be Owed to a Non-Customer Under Martin v. Fifth Third Bank