We Handle a Wide Range of Personal Injury Cases

Our Blog

3 minutes read

Traumatic Brain Injury-Release Signed-Mutual Mistake of Fact

Recently I settled an Illinois traumatic brain injury lawsuit immediately before trial for $800,000. This case was complicated by the fact that the 19 year old male passenger in a car struck by a truck pulling off a stop sign actually signed a release settling his claim with the claims adjustor for $3,250 a few weeks after the accident. About nine months later the young man’s behavior changed radically and he was ultimately admitted to a mental health center with a diagnosis of major depression, and he has and will remain in an inpatient facility for the rest of his life. Suit was filed shortly after his family suspected that he may have suffered a brain injury in the accident, but that the brain injury did not manifest itself until several months following the accident. Defendants filed motion to dismiss on the basis of the release, which was initially granted, but case was transferred to another judge who ruled that a factual issue remained whether there was a mutual mistake of fact.

The main issue in this case was whether there was a mutual mistake of fact at the time the release was signed. I deposed the claims adjustor who testified that she did not contemplate a brain injury at the time of settlement and that her analysis only took into account that the plaintiff had twelve stitches to his head in the accident. The plaintiff also testified that he only felt he had a cut to his head in the accident at the time he signed the release. Four years after the accident a brain injury specialist diagnosed him as having a traumatic brain injury. He testified convincingly that plaintiff was not suffering from depression or schizophrenia, but rather had sustained a traumatic brain injury in the auto accident.

A few months before trial was scheduled to begin I filed a motion for partial summary judgment alleging that there was a mutual mistake of fact that voided the release. In Scherer v. Ravenswood Hospital, 70 Ill. App. 3d 939, 947, 388 N.E. 2d 1268, 1274 (1979) the court stated: “Where…the evidence reveals an injury involving such pervasive damage as permanent mental retardation, resulting from cerebral dysfunction; the settlement is in an amount significantly disparate to the seriousness of the injury; and the injury is an unanticipated, extraordinary complication, then a mutual mistake of fact has been clearly and convincingly proven which, if allowed to stand, will result in an unconscionable hardship to plaintiff.”

Relying on Scherer v. Ravenswood as well Meyer v. Murray, 70 Ill. App. 3d 106, 387 N.E. 2d 878 (1979), the trial judge ruled that the release was invalid based on a mutual mistake of fact at the time the release was signed-neither plaintiff nor claims adjustor were aware of the seriousness of the injury at the time the release was negotiated. Shortly before trial the case settled for $800,000. If you or a family member has sustained a traumatic brain injury call Edmund Scanlan toll free at 877-494-1309 for a free consultation.

Back to Blog

Recent Posts

Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations in Illinois

A lawsuit alleging childhood sexual abuse was filed yesterday in Du Page County, Illinois against Bill Gothard and the Institute of Basic Life Principles that he founded in 1961. The lawsuit filed by 10 women includes allegations of rape, molestation and sexual harassment. The allegations date back to at least 1992. The statute of limitations will surely be an issue. For sexual abuse that occurred as early as 1992, the Illinois statute of limitations in effect for childhood sexual abuse is 735...

Read More

Illinois Fracking Lawsuits

The Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act, 225 ILCS 732/1-1 et. seq. became law in Illinois on June 17, 2013. Environmentalists and landowners above the “New Albany Shale” initially hailed the law, but now that the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources has issued its draft rules, many of the law’s core provisions have been gutted. Specifically, The Act required compliance with “applicable federal, state and local laws.” This language has been omitted from the draft rules. On April 22, 2014, in Dallas County, Texas, a jury...

Read More

Laser Guided Vehicle Accidents

Laser Guided Vehicles (LGV), sometimes referred to as Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGV) are being used increasingly in manufacturing facilities as a replacement for human operated forklifts. While there are benefits in terms of efficiency there have been tragic accidents that are becoming more widespread due to increased usage of the LTV’s. I am currently representing an individual who was seriously injured when the LGV operating in a warehouse where he was employed failed to stop in time thus causing him severe crushing...

Read More