Profile Page

Jason Pearlman

Hennessy & Roach

Chicago

executive

General
Videos

Jason R. Pearlman is a Partner and apart of the Management Committee with Hennessy & Roach, in Chicago, Illinois, and is the Chairperson of the General Liability Litigation Practice Group. He handles a wide variety of matters for the firm including general liability cases involving auto, premises, product liability cases, subrogation and intervening petition liability claims. He received a Bachelor of Arts at Indiana University and his Juris Doctor from the John Marshall School of Law. Prior to joining Hennessy & Roach, P.C., he was an Associate at Friedman & Solmor, Ltd., litigating personal injury matters, including extensive jury trial experience. While attending law school, Mr. Pearlman worked at SPSS, Inc., a statistical software company, in sales and with the legal department. Prior to that, Mr. Pearlman worked as a legal assistant at Jenner & Block, Kirkland & Ellis, and Sidley and Austin. He has been a member of the Chicago Bar Association, the Illinois Bar Association and American Bar Association.

Education:

The John Marshall Law School, Chicago, Illinois
Juris Doctor, June 2000
Admitted to Illinois Bar November, 2000
Admitted to Wisconsin Bar February, 2010
Bachelor of Arts- Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, May 1994
History Major, Sociology Minor

Experience:

Friedman and Solmor, Ltd., Chicago, IL, November 2000-June 2008, Associate Attorney
SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, October 1996-November 2000, Telesales Group Coordinator
Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, May 1994-September 1996, Project Assistant

Professional Affiliations:

Illinois Bar Association

Practice Areas:

Civil Defense Litigation
General Liability Defense
Subrogation – § 5(b) Third Party Liability

Baktzekk v. R & R Trucking

2010

Recoverable Bills from Medicare and Medicaid

2008

Illinois Exception of Deliberate Encounter to Open & Obvious: Morrissey v. Arlington Park Race Course

2011

Rennert v. Great Dane Limited Partnership

2011

Read Case Law

Hennessy & Roach P.C.

Attorney: Jason Pearlman

Rennert v. Great Dane Limited Partnership —-F.3d—, 2008 WL 4172850

Facts: On July 1, 2005, Shmuel Rennert and his wife Devorah were driving behind a large truck which was towing a trailer designed by Great Dane. Rennerts minivan collided the trailer. The underride guard on the back of the trailer failed. The minivan slipped under the trailer. Shmuel Rennert was injured, his wife Deevorah, who was sitting in the passenger seat was killed.

Rennert brought a single count action in state court against Great Dane, alleging Great Dane was liable under Illinois strict product liability. Great Dane removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals affirmed the dismissal by the Northern district of Illinois.

Issue: The issue was whether the Illinois Supreme Court recognizes a cause of action for strict products liability given this fact pattern.

Analysis: In Rennert, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Northern district of Illinois held that the Illinois Supreme Court holds that a manufacturer has a duty to design a vehicle that is reasonably safe for the occupants, but is owes no duty to those who collide with that vehicle. “Even if accidents are foreseeable, the court reasoned, the manufacturer is obligated to secure the occupants of only its vehicle from that foreseeable harm: the manufacturer does not owe a duty to protect those who collide with its vehicle.” See Rennert, quoting Mieher v. Brown, 54 Ill.2d 539, 301 N.E.2d 307 (1973).

The court went on to state that it was the Rennert’s bad luck that Illinois is not one of the nine states that recognizes the cause of action in his case. Beattie v. Lindelof, 262 Ill.App.3d, 372, 199 Ill.Dec. 236, 633 N.E.2d 1227 (1994).

he federal court sitting in diversity noted the Illinois Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on this issue, however, the court take its guidance from the above stated appellate courts unless there is persuasive indication that the state supreme court would rule otherwise. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Statewide Ins. Co., 352 F3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir.2003).

Conclusion: Only nine states recognize a cause of action for strict products liability against the manufacture of a vehicle/trailer not brought by an occupant of that vehicle. Illinois is not one of them.