Maximizing Recovery for Truck Accident Victims: Proving Liability Against the Shipper

Maximizing Recovery for Truck Accident Victims: Proving Liability Against the Shipper by Timothy M. Whiting & Sara M. Davis When a person is negligently injured or killed in a collision with a tractor and trailer weighing up to 80,000 pounds, the injuries are often devastating. It is obvious to look to the negligence of the truck driver and the motor carrier as the cause of the collision. However, if your analysis of liability ends there, you may be overlooking a key player in the arrangement that led to that truck being on the road: the shipper of the load. Motor carriers of nonhazardous property are required to carry only $750,000 in single limit coverage. Considering the amount of damage a tractor and trailer can cause, just one person s injuries can easily exceed that $750,000 minimum coverage making it important to seek recovery from all who are involved in the transportation chain: the truck driver, the motor carrier, and the shipper of a load. There is not liability against the shipper in every case nor will one want to pursue it in every case. However, one should consider the liability of the shipper in every case where the damages exceed the coverage available through the driver and carrier. The shipper will file a motion for summary judgment. It is necessary to understand the evolving body of law surrounding shipper liability to create a question of fact through discovery to survive summary judgment and build the case against a shipper. The shipper is the company that hires the motor carrier to haul its goods. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations define a shipper as a person who sends or receives property which is transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 1 While the body of case law against shippers is evolving, the prevailing causes of action are familiar. Several of the cases cited as authority for liability against the shipper address the broker. In certain circumstances the shipper will hire a broker to manage its freight logistics. In cases where this is not done, the shipper is essentially fulfilling the same roles and obligations as the broker. Negligent Selection Cause of Action For purposes of imposing liability against a shipper, the most often pled cause of action is for negligent selection. An employer is subject to liability for physical harm to third persons as a result of its failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent and careful contractor (a) to do work which will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or (b) to perform any duty which the employer owes to third persons. 2 In one of the earliest cases of shipper liability, L.B. Foster v. Hurnblad, the defendant steel company, Hurnbald, entered into a contract with a carrier to haul its steel. That contractor then subcontracted to an owner-operator. The tractor-trailer hauling Hurnblad s steel collided with a vehicle injuring the occupants. The trial court found that even though the shipper had no actual knowledge that the carrier did not provide reasonable highway equipment, it should have known in the exercise of reasonable care. The trial court found it significant that the steel shipper was not merely a casual shipper and that its load was of a weight and character that presented unusual highway hazards and required a heightened duty in the selection of a carrier. 3 More recently, a New Jersey Supreme Court opinion outlined the elements of a negligent selection claim against a shipper as follows: (1) the company that hauled the load was incompetent; (2) the harm that resulted arose from the incompetence; and (3) the shipper knew or should have known of the incompetence. 4 The New Jersey Supreme Court also established a continuing duty to inquire, finding that even if the shipper made a reasonable inquiry of a carrier at the time of initial hire, the duty did not end there. As the carrier continued to haul for the shipper there was a continuing duty to inquire into the carrier s competence. 5 When imposing liability against shippers under a negligent selection cause of action, the courts will nearly always consider the sophistication of the shipper. The more sophisticated a shipper in terms of the frequency of shipments, the role transportation and freight plays in their business, and the size of its shipments, the more likely the courts are to place a higher duty on it for proper selection of a safe, fit, and competent motor carrier to haul its goods. 6 One wants to prove that the shipper is an integral part of the transportation chain from the carrier being selected, to the load being picked up, to the events leading to the subject collision. One important fact to find out is if the shipper had an assigned maximizing recovery continued on page 58 56 Trial Journal Volume 17, Number 1 Winter 2015

maximizing recovery continued from page 56 Department of Transportation number and if there was a dedicated fleet assigned solely to that shipper. Often the shipper will haul some of its product itself and subcontract part of it out to a cheaper carrier. If that is the case, one can ask questions to determine what safety measures it takes for its own fleet and whether those same measures were demanded of the contracted carrier. If they have their own assigned Department of Transportation number then you can argue they were familiar with and obligated to follow the federal regulations in their own operations and most certainly should require compliance of those same safety rules by the outside motor carrier they select. During discovery it will be helpful to ask the following questions in an effort to prove the sophistication of the shipper: What is the business of the shipper?; How many plants/locations does the shipper have?; How does the shipper distribute to purchasers?; How much product does the shipper ship by truck per day/week/month/year?; How many loads per day?; How many different carriers does the shipper use?; Does the shipper have its own dedicated fleet of trucks?; Does the shipper have an assigned Department of Transportation number? Once you have established that there is a sophisticated shipper upon which the continuing duty to hire competent carriers rests, you must prove the incompetence of the carrier. During discovery one wants to learn if at a minimum the shipper kept a separate file on the carrier; if the carrier had current insurance; if the carrier had federal operating authority; and if the carrier was in satisfactory financial condition. One also wants to obtain the contract outlining the terms of the hauling agreement between the shipper and the carrier. The contract should lay out the terms by which the carrier is to operate safely. The contract can be used to show that although the shipper found these safety thresholds to be important enough to include in the contract, it ignored doing any systematic checks for whether the carrier was operating safely. Next, you will want to obtain the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA) s data on the carrier. 7 The FMCSA provides independent safety ratings for carriers. The ratings take the form of satisfactory or conditional. In our experience, most shippers will check the independent safety rating of the carriers it hires. However, that is often where the investigation ends. The trouble with a shipper relying on safety ratings alone is that the ratings are only updated when a new compliance review is performed. This can result in ratings as old as ten years. Carriers may have a satisfactory rating but if a compliance review was performed they would certainly fall into the conditional category. This creates a safety rating that has no relevance to the safety practices of the carrier at the time of the accident. That is why the inquiry must not stop at the FMCSA rating. It is important to argue that the staleness of an FMCSA rating requires additional inquiry. Following the decision in Puckerin v. ATI Transportation, Inc. and Schramm v. Foster, there is precedent to argue additional inquiry is demanded. 8 In Puckerin, the New Jersey Supreme Court found a continuing obligation to investigate the safety of a carrier. Only conducting an investigation at the time of the initial contract was not enough. 9 In Schramm, the Maryland How can YOU GET INVOLVED in ITLA? Take advantage of the many membership benefi ts included with your ITLA membership. - ITLA COMMITTEES - Amicus Curiae - Extensive volunteer efforts in fi ling friend of the court briefs at the Supreme Court level. Civil Practice & Rules - Generally concerned with the Civil Practice Act and given wide latitude to cover questions relating to legislation, rules and other issues. Offers proposals to the Supreme Court Rules Committee. Legislative - Actively involved in ITLA s legislative efforts, key contact list, as well as proposed and pending legislation. Medical Negligence - Actively involved in issues relating directly to medical negligence. Product Liability & Insurance Law - Issues relating directly to product liability. Makes recommendations as to how insurance law issues could be modifi ed through rule or legislation. Workers Compensation - Studies proposed changes by the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission and the legislature. Plans Workers Compensation Seminar and authors Workers Compensation Trial Notebook. Young Lawyers Division - Established to attract and engage young lawyers and law students as well as to promote membership and provide social opportunities for those practicing less than 10 years. Membership - Development of a larger and more stable membership base for the Association. Call ITLA today to join a committee. 58 Trial Journal Volume 17, Number 1 Winter 2015

Federal District Court held a shipper to a duty of reasonable care in the selection of carriers to include, at least, the subsidiary duties: (1) to check the safety statistics and evaluations of the carriers with whom it contracts that are available on the FMSCA website, and (2) to maintain internal records of the persons with whom it contracts to assure that they are not manipulating their business practices in order to avoid unsatisfactory ratings. 10 The Maryland District Court found this to be a reasonable duty in light of the relative ease and little expense with which it can be done and the critical interest of protecting drivers and passengers on the nation s highways. Schramm is a district court opinion and for most cases will only serve as persuasive authority. However, because this is an evolving and growing body of law with only a dozen published opinions, Schramm is a case that has been frequently cited in subsequent opinions. 11 The additional inquiry is neither burdensome nor expensive for the shipper. A wealth of safety statistics on the motor carrier is readily available on the FMCSA website. It just requires the shipper to look a bit further than the carrier safety rating. In the mid-1990s, the FMCSA, concerned by the inadequacies of the static safety ratings, created Safestat. The Safestat system was comprehensive and included an evaluation of carrier performance in the following areas: driver safety evaluation, vehicle safety evaluation, and accident safety evaluation. 12 All information in Safestat was time-weighted so that more recent safety events were counted more heavily in the scoring methodology than more distant events. Safestat allowed a shipper to continually monitor and evaluate its carriers for real time safety performance. Safestat was free and it was easy to access from the FMCSA website. In December 2010, Safestat was revamped. It is now part of a larger safety data program sponsored by the FMCSA called Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA). Like Safestat, the CSA data is derived from roadside inspections, 13 violations recorded during inspections, state reported crash data, and motor carrier census data. The information from these sources is then put into the FMCSA s On Road Safety Performance system (BASIC) to create a history for each carrier. The following categories are itemized for each carrier in BASIC: unsafe driving, hours of service compliance, driver fitness, controlled substance/alcohol, vehicle maintenance, hazardous materials compliance, and crash indicators. The data is time-weighted, severity-weighted, and normalized to provide a quantifiable measure for a carrier in each BASIC. Based on a comparison of each carrier s BASIC measure to other carriers with similar number of safety events, a rank and percentile are assigned. Similar steps are applied to crash data to calculate carrier Crash Indicator percentiles. 14 If a carrier s BASIC ratings exceed the safety threshold they are placed into a safety intervention. Depending on the severity and how long the carrier s BASIC rating is deficient, the intervention could include measures as little as a warning letter and targeted roadside inspections to as severe as an out-of-service order. 15 The statistics were made public on the FMSCA website to provide motor carrier information to FMCSA and State Enforcement personnel as well as motor carriers, shippers, and the public to help promote analytically sound, safety-conscious decision making. 16 The statistics on the website are continually updated. They are available for shippers to use when selecting motor carriers. That is why the continuing duty to check the competence of carriers placed on shippers in Puckrein is of such significance. This wealth of safety information regarding carriers on the FMCSA website can be used to demonstrate not only the particular unfitness of the carrier selected by the shipper, but also that the shipper could have easily accessed this information to determine the fitness of the carrier hauling its goods. In-depth studies commissioned by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the American Transportation Research Institute show that maximizing recovery continued on page 60 Volume 17, Number 1 Winter 2015 Trial Journal 59

maximizing recovery continued from page 59 those companies that exceed the thresholds are significantly more likely to be involved in a crash. 17 18 It is important to remember the issue is not what the shipper actually knew about the carrier but instead what a reasonable shipper performing a reasonable inquiry would have known about the carrier. In L.B. Foster v. Hurnblad, the court found that even where the shipper had no actual knowledge that the motor carrier was unsafe and the carrier had no history of negligent acts, the shipper may be considered incompetent where the carrier lacked experience, was in poor financial condition, was willing to do business at cut rates, or failed to meet federal certificate requirements. 19 In Hudgens v. Cook Industries, Inc., the court found that where there is some evidence tending to show the shipper knew or should have known that the carrier was incompetent and reasonable men might draw conflicting conclusions, then whether or not the shipper negligently selected the carrier is a question of fact for the jury. 20 Proving Proximate Cause Once you have the proof that the carrier was incompetent and the shipper knew or should have known of the incompetence you must then prove proximate cause. In order to prevail on a negligent selection theory, you must prove that the deficient characteristics, traits, and qualities which render the carrier incompetent are the same deficient characteristics, traits, and qualities that proximately caused the subject accident. 21 In Illinois this means proving both cause in fact and legal cause. 22 The accident investigator at the scene and the expert accident reconstructionist will have theories on the cause of the accident. It is imperative that the negligence that caused the accident was the same type of behavior that rendered the carrier incompetent at the time of selection. For example, imagine that a carrier has terrible safety ratings due only to violations for poor vehicular maintenance and that all other areas of its safety ratings are satisfactory. The same carrier has a driver who causes a fatal accident after falling asleep at the wheel after driving too many hours. In this situation, there is no proximate cause between the conduct that rendered the carrier incompetent for selection by the shipper and the conduct that caused the accident. The logic seems simple but can be a trap for the unwary. A case for negligent selection may seem obvious where the carrier has a history of drivers over hours, under the influence, or operating trucks without a CDL; however, none of those unsafe practices will matter if the accident happened because the tractor trailer was poorly maintained causing the wheel to come off and cause an accident. Knowing the jurisdiction s laws on proximate cause is critical. Some jurisdictions have allowed a broader interpretation of proximate cause, and have been willing to find that the shipper s negligent selection of the carrier put it on the road at the time of the accident and was therefore a proximate cause of the accident. 23 Common Defenses to Negligent Selection One of the first defenses argued by the shipper against a claim for negligent selection is that its duty to investigate does not extend past checking for a satisfactory rating with the FMCSA. This is a strong defense. In the last five years, no cases have come down where liability has been extended to the shipper for hiring a carrier with a satisfactory rating. The argument in response to this defense is to use the case law which requires a shipper to investigate further than the FMCSA safety rating to ensure they are not manipulating business practices to avoid unsatisfactory ratings. 24 The static FMCSA safety rating is not the only consideration that the courts have looked into and continue to consider in negligent selection cases. 25 They also consider the financial condition of the carrier, adequate and current insurance, and the contract outlining the safety expectations of the shipper. 26 Another defense that one can expect to see from the shipper is to attack the reliability of the FMCSA methodologies used to determine a carrier s safety ratings for the BASICS thresholds. In order to defuse this defense, one wants to take the time to learn and understand the FMCSA safety system, ratings, and statistical methodologies. There are excellent experts available to assist this process and offer reliable testimony on the FMCSA system. Similar to attacking the credibility of the methodology of the FMCSA safety ratings, the defendant shipper has and will argue that there is no evidence that the FMCSA ratings are effective in predicting crashes. There is evidence that this defense is not accurate. The American Transportation Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Transportation commissioned several studies that demonstrate that crash rates for carriers that exceed the BASICS threshold are significantly higher than for carriers that do not 60 Trial Journal Volume 17, Number 1 Winter 2015

exceed the BASIC threshold. 27 Another common defense advanced by shippers is preemption. The defendant shipper will argue that the federal regulation of trucking preempts any common law claim for negligent selection against a shipper. However, liability against a shipper for negligent selection is in line with the federal regulatory objectives. Most importantly, courts have been uniformly against federal preemption for personal injury actions. 28 Retained Control under Restatements of Torts 414 Cause of Action Another legal argument used to advance liability against the shipper is to argue that at the time of the crash the driver was acting as an agent for the shipper or that there was retained control under Restatements of Torts 414 to hold the shipper vicariously liable. Generally, one does not have liability for the acts of an independent contractor. An exception was carved out for when the contractor retains control over the independent contractor. 29 The facts and circumstances have to be appropriate for this cause of action to prevail. In order to determine whether a person is an agent or an independent contractor, the court s cardinal consideration is the right to control the manner of the work and performance regardless of whether that right was actually exercised. 30 Other factors considered are the nature of the work performed in relation to the general business of the employer, the right to discharge, the method of payment, the provision of necessary tools, materials and equipment, whether taxes are being deducted from the payment, and the level of skill required. 31 In Sperl v. C.H. RobinsonWorldwide, Inc., the Illinois Third District Appellate Court identified significant factors it relied on in finding that the defendant retained control over the driver. 32 In that case, the defendant was the company that brokered the carrier on behalf of the shipper. As indicated earlier, where the shipper takes on this role itself there is no legal distinction. In Sperl, the driver was employed by a carrier, Dragonfly. The driver did not contact Dragonfly but rather contacted the broker directly to be assigned the load. The driver was paid directly by the broker when the load was delivered. The broker had created certain time deadlines in the agreement that fined the driver for late loads. These deadlines forced the driver to work beyond the federally allowed hours or be subject to financial fines. The driver had to regularly check in with the broker while on the trip and notify the broker if there was an accident. The broker also had requirements for temperature and size of the trailer. The third district also found it significant that the broker was in the business of freight logistics. The broker had also purchased the load from the shipper. The contract between the broker and Dragonfly stated that all drivers were Dragonfly employees and that Dragonfly was being hired as an independent contractor. The third maximizing recovery continued on page 62 We ll find a way. ADR Systems engages passionately committed neutrals. Continuously striving to bring your case to resolution means that, just like you, our work does not stop at 5. The unwavering commitment of our neutrals and staff to exceptional client service allows ADR Systems to settle 91% of our mediated cases, and provide the most efficient arbitration process available. Let us help resolve your next dispute. Call us at 312.960.2260. Hon. Michael Hogan, (Ret.) Volume 17, Number 1 Winter 2015 Trial Journal 61

maximizing recovery continued from page 61 district found that these facts supported an inference that the broker controlled the work of the driver at the time of the collision and could be held vicariously liable. The jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against the broker in excess of $20 million was upheld. The Northern District of Illinois recently had an opportunity to consider a similar case; however, the Northern District Court did not find liability against the shipper in a retained control argument. 33 In Scheinman v. Martin s Bulk Milk Services, Inc., the shipper contracted with a carrier for the delivery of its goods. The contract between the shipper and carrier contained many of the same time delivery requirements as the carrier contract in Sperl. Absent in this contract was any financial penalty against the driver. In contrast to Sperl, the shipper did not pay the driver directly nor did the shipper have the right to terminate the driver, as he was employee of the carrier, although the shipper did have the right to refuse to work with a driver. The court recognized that the contract between the shipper and the carrier had a number of obligations set by the shipper that the driver was required to meet. One such obligation was that the driver was required to stay in constant communication with the shipper while on his route. The troubling aspect of the court s opinion is that it disregarded this retained control and instead noted, the hauling services provided by [the driver] did not go to the heart of [the shipper s] business but were instead the type of generic delivery services utilized by many manufacturers, retailers, and distributors. 34 The court noted the decision in Sperl, but found it distinguishable on the facts. The analysis for retained control under Restatements of Torts 414 is controlled heavily by the facts surrounding the relationship between the shipper and the driver. The defendant shippers will be prepared for questions concerning the elements of retained control at the deposition. Often the driver is the best source of favorable testimony. Conclusion The laws for extending liability to shippers are continually evolving in both negligent selection and retained control/agency. It is important when considering the various aspects of liability in a serious tractor trailer accident to look into the current movement on the law in these areas. When clients are devastatingly injured or killed they are looking to us as their lawyers to maximize their justice. Often the insurance limits of the coverage for the driver and carrier will not be enough, and it is necessary to pursue the shipper of the goods to ensure maximum recovery for victims. Endnotes 1 49 C.F.R. 376.2(k). 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts 411 (1965). 3 L.B. Foster Co. v. Hurnblad, 418 F2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1969). 4 Puckrein v. ATI Transp., Inc., 897 www.ringlerassociates.com The First Name in Structured Settlements SM Structured Settlements provide a safe harbor from adverse market fluctuations; Ringler s Structured Settlement recipients have not lost any income during the recent financial crises. Ringler is the nation s largest structured settlement company and has been protecting your clients in Illinois for over 30 years. Security for Your Future Is More Important Now than Ever. Ringler has continuously supported NWSBA, ITLA and AAJ. Mike Casey: mcasey@ringlerassociates.com Pat Kilinsky: pkilinsky@ringlerassociates.com 1.800.332.0427 62 Trial Journal Volume 17, Number 1 Winter 2015

A.2d 1034, 1042 (N.J. 2006). 5 Id. at 1045. 6 L.B. Foster Co., 418 F2d at 729. 7 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association Safety Data is free and easy to access at http://www.fmcsa.dot. gov/safety/company-safety-records. 8 Puckrein, 897 A.2d at 1045; Schramm v. Foster, 341 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md. 2004). 9 Puckrein, 897 A.2d at 1045. 10 Schramm, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 551. 11 Id. 12 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS) Methodology Version 3.0.2, June 2014. 13 Roadside inspections are examinations a Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program inspector conducts on individual commercial motor vehicle carriers and drivers to determine compliance with FMCSA regulations. 14 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS) Methodology Version, 3.0.2, June 2014, pg. 2-3. 15 Id. at 7. 16 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Analysis & Information Online, hhtp://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/ siteguide/whatisai.aspx. 17 Evaluation of the CSA 2010 Operational Model Test, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2011; Madsen, Dave, Violation to Crash Risk Relationship, Volpe Center, December 2012; Compliance, Safety, Accountability: Evaluating a New Safety Measurement System and Its Implications, American Transportation Research Institute, December 2012; Compliance, Safety, Accountability: Analyzing the Relationship of Score to Risk, American Transportation Research Institute, October 2012; Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS) Methodology, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS) Methodology Version 3.0.2, June 2014 (emphasis added). 18 Dave Madsen, Violation to Crash Risk Relationship, Volpe Center, December 2012, page 21. 19 L.B. Foster, 418 F2d at 730 (9th Cir. 1969). 20 Puckrein, 897 A.2d at 1042. 21 21 Doe v. BSA, No. 2-13-0121, 2014 WL 274426, *8 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Jan. 24, 2014). 22 Lee v. Chicago Transit Auth., 152 Ill.2d 432, 454 (1992). 23 Chinn v. Mark Transp., Inc., L-829-06, 2010 WL 374958 (N.J. Super. A.D. Feb. 4, 2010); Shropshire v. Shaneyfelt, 12 CV 1657, 2013 WL 4504390 (W.D. Pa. Aug, 22, 2013). 24 Schramm, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 551-2. 25 Id. at 551. 26 Id. (citing L.B. Foster Co., 418 F2d at 729). 27 Evaluation of the CSA 2010 Operational Model Test, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2011; Madsen, Dave, Violation to Crash Risk Relationship, Volpe Center, December 2012; Compliance, Safety, Accountability: Evaluating a New Safety Measurement System and Its Implications, American Transportation Research Institute, December 2012; Compliance, Safety, Accountability: Analyzing the Relationship of Score to Risk, American Transportation Research Institute, October 2012; Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS) Methodology, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS) Methodology Version 3.0.2, June 2014. 28 Jiminez-Ruiz v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 794 F.Supp.2d 344, 348 (D. Puerto Rico 2011). 29 Restatement (Second) of Torts 414(a) (c) (1965). 30 Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 408 Ill.App.3d 1051, 1057 (3rd Dist. 2011) (citing Commerce Bank v. Youth Services of Mid-Illinois, Inc., 333 Ill. App.3d 150 (4th Dist. 2000)). 31 Sperl, 408 Ill.App.3d at 1057. 32 Id. (petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court denied). 33 Scheinman v. Martin s Bulk Milk Services, Inc., 09 C 5340, 2013 WL 6467525 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2013). 34 Id. at 9. Timothy M. Whiting is an Illinois and Wisconsin licensed attorney who started the Whiting Law Group in 2001. Tim has obtained over $120 million in compensation for his clients and has earned recoveries in 96% of his cases. As a result of his success, Tim has been recognized as one of the Top 40 Lawyers under 40 in Illinois and as one of the top 100 lawyers in Illinois by the American Trial Lawyers Association. Tim has over a decade of experience pursing justice on behalf of those injured or killed in truck accidents across the country. He has won multi-million dollar settlements and verdicts for clients in trucking accident cases. Tim serves on the National Board of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America (APITLA) as well as being an active member of the Interstate Trucking Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice. Sara M. Davis joined the Whiting Law Group in 2012. In her first year with the Whiting Law Group, Sara obtained $4.5 million in compensation through settlements and verdicts on behalf of her clients. Sara has obtained successful settlements and verdicts in cases involving construction accidents, wrongful death, medical malpractice, and motor vehicle accidents in both Illinois and Wisconsin. Sara has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star and has also received recognition for her pro bono work. Sara is active in the Women s Bar Association of Illinois serving as a chair of the Judicial Evaluation Committee. Prior to joining the Whiting Law Group, Sara spent six years serving as defense counsel on complex civil tort cases. Through this work Sara developed a deep understanding of the complex issues which arise in the personal injury field. Volume 17, Number 1 Winter 2015 Trial Journal 63