Attorney Tom Paris involved me in this matter after a tragic incident in which Michael Racky fell through a glass storefront in Oak Park, IL. Mr. Racky was severely lacerated by weakened non-safety glass and died at the scene from his injuries.
The police photos were of high quality, perfectly conveying the violence and danger that occurred when the unsafe glass suddenly and unexpectedly broke. The huge shards remaining in the opening were razor-sharp, and first responders were afraid to enter the opening to tend to Mr. Racky in his last moments.
The police photos conveyed something more: there was a pre-existing bullet hole in the glass (arrow) that was taped over. Another such hole and additional cracks were also present. This glass was a catastrophe awaiting a victim; minimal pressure caused the huge piece of glass to shatter without warning.
Because of Tom Paris‘s dogged and intelligent pursuit of this matter, the family prevailed in a bench court and again on appeal, bringing a small measure of peace that the negligent parties were held responsible.
The court was also kind to me. Some excerpts from the opinion:
“Mark Meshulam testified as an expert on behalf of the plaintiff in the field of building engineering with a specialty in windows and glass. Meshulam based his testimony on his review of photographic evidence, records from Belfor, and deposition testimony. He also visited the site and performed computerized calculations on glass strength in forming his opinions.
Meshulam further opined that “it would take very minimal pressure or force to cause the glass to fail in the way that it did when Mr. Racky fell through it,” based on his extensive experience observing and creating glass breakage under various conditions.
According to Meshulam, the glass industry cuts plate glass by placing a small scratch on the surface with a robot arm and then cracking the glass. The process is very quick and precise: “They don’t cut at all. They simply scratch it and crack it.”
The trial court concluded that the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Meshulam, was more credible than Anderson’s and was supported by eyewitness testimony and photographic evidence.
The full opinion can be found here:
