ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Illinois Lawyer Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: Illinois Lawyer Blog

ASBESTOS CASE LEADS TO IMPORTANT CHANGE IN HOW DISCOVERY DEPOS MAY BE USED IN ILLINOIS

By Mark P. Loftus, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

244234_asbestos.jpg


The Berry v. American Standard case is tough to read. Howard Berry was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma in 2003. In 2004 he filed suit against 47 different defendants, alleging that he was exposed to asbestos at their jobsites. Because of Berry's failing health, his attorney sought to preserve his testimony by taking Berry's evidence deposition[where a person's testimony is recorded for use at trial at a later date]. The defendants all objected, insisting that they were entitled to get the Berry's discovery deposition prior to any evidence deposition. A series of unfortunate delays occurred and the discovery deposition wasn't completed for 5 months. At that point, Berry was in very poor health and died shortly thereafter. His evidence deposition was never completed. At that time, Supreme Court Rule 212 prohibited the use of a party's discovery deposition as evidence at trial. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The Appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial court. Justice Chapman, a member of the Fifth District Appellate Court filed a concurring opinion, where he frankly acknowledged that the legal system had failed Howard Berry.

Recently, Illinois Supeme Court Rule 212 was amended, and the Berry case was a significant factor leading to the amendment. As of January 1, 2011, a trial judge has discretion to permit the use of any discovery deposition[with the exception of a controlled expert]as evidence at trial, against any party who was at the deposition or given notice of the deposition, if: 1) the deponent is unable to testify at trial due to death or illness and 2) the deponent's deposition has not been taken. Additionally, amended Supreme Rule 212 requires the Court to find that permitting the use of the discovery deposition as evidence will do substantial justice between the parties. Unfortunately, this amendment comes far too late for Mr. Berry, but will preclude any similar injustice in the future.

Full post as published by Illinois Lawyer Blog on February 17, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0024 secs (from cache 10/31/26 13:36:41)