Failure to Prove Proximate Cause Results in a Dismissal of a Legal Malpractice Complaint
In this case, the plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for malpractice, alleging that the lawyers were negligent when they failed to sue General Motors for strict liability of a manufacturing defect in a car the plaintiffs were in an accident in. After the defendants argued that proximate causation and damages elements could not be established because the plaintiffs’ successor lawyer successfully sued GM for strict liability the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, and on December 19, 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed this ruling.
In 1997, the plaintiffs were involved in a serious car accident (one of the plaintiffs was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the accident). Without warning the steering and brakes of the car the plaintiffs were riding in completely failed. GM, the car’s manufacturer, had issued recall notices for defects in the car which the plaintiffs were riding in. One of the notices warned that while the vehicle was in motion that steering and braking control could be affected by cracks in the wheel mounting surface which could result in an accident without warning.
Shortly after the accident, the plaintiffs retained the defendants to represent them in an effort to obtain compensation from their injuries. Although the lawyers knew about the GM recalls, they chose not to file a cause of action against GM on behalf of the plaintiffs. At some point, the defendants ceased representing the plaintiffs and in 2002 a successor lawyer sued GM for strict liability, asserting that the manufacturing defects in the car contributed to the accident and plaintiffs’ injuries. The lawsuit resulted in a $2,265,000 settlement which was referred to in the settlement agreement as “fair and reasonable.”
After settling their strict liability case, the plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice complaint against their original lawyers for not filing suit against GM for strict liability. The plaintiffs claimed that because of the defendants’ negligence, they lost the full value of their claim against GM and that the $2,265,000 was only a partial settlement and therefore, did not bar the plaintiffs from pursuing the present legal malpractice action.
The defendants successfully argued that the plaintiffs sustained no damages as a result of the defendants’ representation because ultimately, with a successor lawyer, they sued GM and settled their strict liability lawsuit for a “substantial sum…which all parties deemed fair and reasonable.”
In affirming the trial court, the Appellate Court found that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs received anything less than full value from their lawsuit against GM. While the Appellate Court pointed out that settlement by a successor lawyer does not necessarily bar a malpractice suit against a former lawyer. They went on to say that attorney malpractice should be allowed where the plaintiff can show that he settled for less than he could have reasonably expected without the malpractice, but that was simply not shown in this case. See, Web, et al. v. Damisch, et al.