Biography:
Mr. Burton focuses his practice on products liability and catastrophic injury claims. He has experience defending claims involving automotive products, construction injuries, construction defects and general personal injury claims. Mr. Burton has experience in every phase of litigation, including investigation, discovery, dispositive motions, negotiation of favorable settlements, arbitrations and trial preparation.
Education:
University of Wisconsin Law School, J.D., 2001
Wisconsin International Law Journal 2000-2001, Senior Article Editor
Loyola University, B.A., Cum Laude, 1995
Bar Admissions:
Illinois (2001)
Professional Memberships:
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
Defense Research Institute
Village of Oak Park Community Design Commission
Publications:
"Discovery for Trial" (co-author), chapter in Countown to Trial: A Crash Course in Trial Preparation for Paralegals published by the Institute for Paralegal Education (August 2008).
“Catastrophic Losses: What is Covered” (co-author), chapter in the Insurance Law Updates course book published by the National Business Institute (June 2008).
"Tort Reform in Illinois" (co-author), chapter in Tort Reform: A Compendium of Tort Reform Enactments in All 50 States published by Primerus Defense Institute (May 2007).
"Depleted Morality: Yugoslavia v. Ten NATO Members and Depleted Uranium," Wisconsin International Law Journal, Volume 19.1, 17-40.
Representative Cases:
Estate of Lichaw, et al v. 69 West Washington Management Company LLC, et al, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Office building fire (6 wrongful death and 16 personal injury cases consolidated for discovery). Representing defendants Aargus Security Systems Inc. and BGK Security Services Inc. This fire occurred on a Friday afternoon in a high rise office building in downtown Chicago . Multiple governmental investigations followed including one by an ad-hoc commission appointed by the Cook County Board which conducted public hearings. Six building occupants were killed. Sixteen others sustained personal injuries. This litigation is continuing against the security companies, the building management company, several contractors, the City of Chicago , and the County of Cook.
Various plaintiffs v. Borg Warner Corporation, et al, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Multiple personal injury actions with plaintiffs' alleging exposure to allegedly asbestos-containing automotive products. The plaintiffs suffer from conditions including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Entry of multiple orders for summary judgment, voluntary dismissals and reasonable negotiated settlement.
Andruscavage v. CTA. Represented third party defendant Prairie Material Sales and obtained dismissal of action filed by the CTA as time-barred. Dismissal was obtained despite the general inapplicability of statutes of limitation to municipal entities by utilizing an exception to the rule recognizing the CTA was acting in a private capacity in defense of the plaintiff's tort action rather than for the benefit of the public at large.
Ben-Joy Inc. v. E. Anthony Inc. Second chair at trial for defendant. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract to construct a restaurant alleging defective work and deviations from the plans. Defendant argued that the original architect's plans were unworkable. Jury trial resulted in not guilty verdicts for both the defendant.
GVW v. Mill Supply, Inc. Represented Defendant. Plaintiff, the manufacturer of delivery vehicles, sued replacement part distributor alleging trademark infringement. Negotiated dismissal of multimillion dollar action.
Wagner v. City of Chicago. Represented defendant Gateway Construction Company against claims alleging failure to provide safe working environment and supervision at construction site. The plaintiff allegedly tripped over perimeter cable left on the jobsite. Summary judgment obtained for Gateway.
Midwest v. Irwin. Represented defendant. Midwest sued Irwin in defamation action. Plaintiff claimed letter terminating the business relationship between the two companies stated "we need to partner with suppliers who not only stand behind their product(s), but value our business and relationship as well." Defendant argued that the statement was privileged as it was made only to employees and agents of plaintiff, that the statement was capable of innocent construction and therefore not actionable. Summary judgment obtained for defendant.
See Extended Biography
