Illinois Lawyer Blog

A St. Clair County, Illinois jury today handed down a multimillion dollar verdict against the Belleville Diocese for flagrant sexual abuse of a minor by Rev. Raymond Kownacki. The plaintiff, James Wisniewski, now 47, claimed that he was repeatedly abused in the 1970's by Kownacki. For the appalling details of the abuse, please see my August 27, 2008 post The jury awarded Wisniewsk $5 Million dollars in damages. The award included $2.6 million dollars in punitive damages and $2.4 million dollars in compensatory damages.

According to an online account, the Rev. Joseph Schwagel, a former Belleville Diocese official, testified at trial that there were attempts to cover up the allegations and the victims were treated like "dirty laundry". Sara Wiesner, a juror from O'Fallon Illinois told reporters that the actions of the Diocese were "appalling".

Kownacki, was removed from active ministry in 1995. Shockingly, he remains a priest and receives retirement benefits.

Lawyers for the Diocese made no comment as they left the courtroom. They had argued that the statute of limitations had run on the case and it was not clear if an appeal was planned.

POSTCRIPT:

Several readers have emailed me commenting that my August 27 post was overly harsh, in that I condemned the entire church for the depived actions of a few. In retrospect, they are right. There are many good people in the Catholic Church doing good work throughout the world. Unfortunately, their good work gets overshadowed by the heinous acts of freaks like Kownacki. I will try for more precision in the future.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, there was some absolutely jaw-dropping testimony yesterday in a clergy sex abuse case trial currently underway in St. Clair County, Illinois. James Wisniewski, 47, is suing the Belleville, Illinois Diocese for for damages arising out of the years of sexual abuse committed upon him by Rev. Raymond Kownacki in the 1970's. Wisniewski has testified that Kownacki abused him some 40-50 times over a 5 year period beginning in 1973. Wisniewski further testified that Kownacki told him that the church "condoned" sexual abuse of minors and that if Wisniewski told anyone about the abuse, Kownacki would kill the boy's parents and ruin their business. To drive home the point, Kownacki showed Wisniewski a handgun. In addition, there has been evidence that Kownacki raped a 16 year old girl and aborted her fetus with his hands.

Bishop Wilton Gregory testified yesterday[Tuesday] for the defense. And it didn't go well for the Diocese. Bishop Gregory was brutally honest in his testimony and dropped a couple of bombs.

First, Gregory didn't particularly help the diocese on the issue of liability. He agreed that the Diocese would be liable if, prior to Wisniewski being abused, the Diocese was aware that Kownacki was molesting children, and simply moved him from parish to parish without warning. Previous testimony has indicated that is precisely what happened.

In addition, Gregory testified that there appeared to be an active cover-up orchestrated by the Diocese when he was leading an investigation into sexual abuse of minors in the 1990's. Gregory testified that "dozens" of documents, concerning young victims of certain priests, including Kownacki, may have been withheld from him. Reports on Kownacki dating back to 1973 and 1982 were "not filed where the should have been filed". The evidence has already shown that the Diocese was well aware of the missing reports before Gregory started his investigation.

Gregory also weighed in the propriety of the string of transfers allowing Kownacki to go from one parish to the next without any warnings to parishioners. Gregory ackowleged that after a half dozen reports about alleged abuse, he never would have approved the final transfer to St. Henry's Parish in Belleville - where Kownacki lived next door to an elementary school.

And fomer Vicar General Monsignor James Margason also testified yesterday. He was the last witness for the defense. Rev. Margason is a canon lawyer certified to represent accused priests. Margason testified that he was aware, prior to Gregory's investigation, of the reports about Kownacki raping the 16 year old gir and aborting her fetus. Margason was also aware, prior to Gregory's investigation, of reports that Kownacki was molesting twin boys from Guatemala. Finally, Margason was aware, prior to Gregory's investigation, that there were reports of two other victims, including Wisnieski. So what did the Vicar General Monsignor Margason do when Gregory began his investigation? What did Vicar General Monsignor Margason, the canon lawyer do? He withheld the reports. Margason admitted that in so doing he breached church law and Review Board Guidelines[not to mention basic laws of human decency].

Margason was also asked about his actions when he became aware of allegations against Kownacki in 1986, after a housekeeper found a love note signed by Kownacki and directed to a young boy, asking the youth to come to his bedroom and "give him a massage". The Vicar General Monsignor took Kownacki's word that nothing had happened. Margason took the word of a guy he knew had raped a 16 year old girl and aborted the fetus with his own hands.

Margason also admitted that he was obligated to punish Kownacki for engaging in the abortion, but failed to do so. So although the church doesn't hesitate to viciously condemn those who support the right to choose, it doesn't lift a finger when one of its own performs an abortion on a girl he raped. Hypocrisy run amuk.

Most trial advocacy experts say you should finish your case with a good, strong witness for your client. Maybe the lawyers for the Diocese didn't take Trial Advocacy in law school.

The verdict is expected soon. I hope the plaintiff breaks the Diocese bank.

Check out the August issue of the Illinois Bar Journal for a good article by April Pruitt-Summers on the Illinois Animal Control Act, 510 ILCS 5/1 et. seq. The first thing that caught my eye was the link to a study conducted by pediatrician Jeffrey Sacks M.D. and reported in PEDIATRICS[Vol. 97, No. 6, ppss. 891-95]. The link contains some pretty sobering statistics. From 1989 to 1994, on average, there were 18 deaths per year due to dog attacks. Nearly 60% of those deaths were children under the age of 10. As Ms. Pruitt-Summers notes in her article, dog-bite cases, which are sometimes scoffed at, are now getting much more attention, particularly in light of the attention the media is giving to attacks by "bully breed" dogs.

According to the article, in order to recover under the Act, the plaintiff must prove:

1) an injury, caused by a dog owned by defendant;
2) lack of provocation;
3) peaceable conduct on the part of plaintiff; and
4) the plaintiff was in a location where he or she was entitled to be. 510 ILCS 5/1 et. seq.

As to injury, Ms. Pruitt-Summers notes that an actual bite is not necessary. A plaintiff can be injured simply by colliding with the dog. In addition, "ownership" as used in the Act, doesn't imply actual legal ownership. Instead, the person keeping the dog, or acting as the dog's custodian can be held responsible. Under the Act, the plaintiff is only obligated to prove that the defendant had some measure of control.

With respect to provocation, the analysis is whether the behavior in question is provocative to the dog. As the author explains, in deciding motions based upon provocation, the Court looks at the behavior from the dog's perspective, as opposed to the perspective of the victim. Finally, with respect to the final element, the plaintiff can only recover if he has a right to be where the incident took place. The Act bars recovery to people who are injured while trespassing.

The article is fairly comprehensive and worth a look before filing that dog bite complaint.

And, all this talk of dog bite cases reminds me of a story...

Several years ago, I was prosecuting a dog bite case. The dog in question was an enormous, male German Shepherd. The entire time the defense lawyer kept assuring me that the dog was really quite gentle and wouldn't harm a fly. He was convinced my client had provoked the dog. As it turns out, I secured an order to do an inspection of where the incident took place - the defendant's home. My client had been invited to the home for a business meeting. When I arrived at the home at the appointed hour, just myself and the other lawyer were present. The homeowner had given a key to the defense lawyer. The hound however, was home. And he wasn't in his cage. The defense lawyer inserted the key in the outer door to go inside. Immediately, there was a low, deep, growl on the other side of the door. As the lawyer turned the key, the growl became much louder. Then, the beast began to bark. Short, disturbing, staccato barks, not unlike a hyena. Then came the violent scratching. From my vantage point, the dog had apparently decided to actually eat through the door in order to get to whomever was foolish enough to be on the other side. My defense lawyer friend was frozen in place.

I couldn't resist.

"What's the matter?", I asked. "You said the dog was gentle. Open the door, let's get this over with."

He was having none of it.

"I'm not going in there. We'll wait for the owner to get here".

Shortly thereafter, the case settled.

Recently completed a case where my client was involved in a rear end collision with a large truck on a local highway. The case was tried to a judge and at the conclusion of my case the defense, as they always do, argued for a directed verdict. What I did not know at the time[but do now]is that the standard for a directed verdict motion in a bench trial is somewhat different than the standard utilized in a jury trial.

In a jury trial, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, pursuant to Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co. (Ill.1967), 37 Ill.2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504. In a bench trial setting however, the standard as explained in 735 ILCS 5/2-1110, is a bit different. Section 5/2-1110 provides

2-1110. Motion in non-jury case to find for defendant at close of evidence. In all cases tried without a jury, defendant may, at the close of plaintiff's case, move for a finding or judgment in his or her favor. In ruling on the motion the court shall weigh the evidence, considering the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and quality of the evidence. If the ruling on the motion is favorable to the defendant, a judgment dismissing the action shall be entered. If the ruling on the motion is adverse to the defendant, the defendant may proceed to adduce evidence in support of his or her defense, in which event the motion is waived.
735 ILCS 5/2-1110

Essentially, as explained in Kokinis v. Kotrich (Ill.1980) 81 Ill.2d 151, 40 Ill.Dec. 812, 407 N.E.2d 43, in a bench trial setting, the court follows a two step process. First, the Court must determine if the plaintiff has established his prima facie case. If not, the motion for directed finding should be granted. If the Court finds the plaintiff has established his prima facie case, the court must then weigh all the evidence, including evidence which favors the defendant. After weighing all the evidence, the court then applies the standard of proof required for the underlying cause to determine if sufficient proof remains to sustain the prima facie case. If the court decides the defendant's evidence has negated any evidence necessary for plaintiff to prevail, the motion should be granted. If the defense has not negated any portion of the plaintiff's case the motion should be denied.

Thankfully, the court denied the motion and ultimately a significant six figure verdict was entered for my client. The case is presently on appeal.

Another entry from the Truth is Stranger than Fiction Department...

A Chicago-area man is claiming that some undercooked fish he ate as a patron at Shaw's Crabhouse had rather horrifying repercussions. Franz recently filed a lawsuit against Shaw's and is claiming that as a result of eating the fish he became violently ill for several days. And that is the less disgusting part of his damages. In addition, Franz is claiming that due to the undercooked salmon, he later passed a NINE FOOT TAPEWORM[yes, you read that correctly].

In the lawsuit, Franz quotes a Chicago-area pathologist, who opined that the origin of the tapeworm was likely undercooked fish, such as salmon. Franz is suing Shaw's and its parent company, Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises for pain and suffering and loss enjoyment of life.

I have attached a picture of a tapeworm I snagged off the internet. Tough to imagine someone yanking nine feet of this stuff out of you...

A Florida Federal District Court judge recently refused to dismiss the lawsuit that accuses CNN's Nancy Grace of driving a young woman to commit suicide. The lawsuit, filed by the parents of Melinda Duckett, arises out of an appearance Ms. Duckett made on The Nancy Grace Show shortly after Duckett's son, Trenton, went missing in August of 2006. The Ducketts contend in their lawsuit that Grace lured their daughter onto the show under false pretenses, by suggesting that an appearance on the show could help locate her son.

On the show however, Ms. Grace, a former prosecutor, allegedly accused Ms. Duckett of hiding something, and asked pointed questions about why Duckett had refused a lie detector test. Ms. Grace also pointed out that several of Ms. Duckett's answers were not particularly specific. Bethann Eubank, the mother of Melinda Duckett, has indicated that after the appearance, her daughter was very distraught, and ultimately shot herself, shortly before the pre-recorded show aired.

CNN and Grace had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that permitting it to go forward would "chill" coverage of missing persons cases. Judge William Terrell Hodges disagreed however, and refused to dismiss the case. Nancy Grace spokesperson Janine Iamunno recently commented that "This is only a procedural ruling about whether the case should be allowed to go forward. It does not mean that the claims are likely to succeed".

To date, Trenton has not been found.

Back from vacation, lots to catch up on...

Salary.Com just released its annual study regarding the market value of a stay at home mom. Every year this group gets together and evaluates precisely what mom is worth, by looking at pay levels for the various jobs a mother may do during a given week, like housekeeping, child-care, van driver and teacher. This year, the number they came up with? $116,805. The biggest factor in the number is the amount of overtime hours that a mom may work during the week. 18,000 moms were surveyed and the average number of hours worked per week was 94.4 hours, or just over 13 hours a day.