Bautista v. Verson Allsteel Press Co., 152 Ill. App. 3d 524

Summary

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a defense verdict in a strict products liability action arising from a worker’s hand injuries while operating a press brake machine. The court held that the evidence supported the jury’s findings regarding the absence of a point-of-operation safety device, machine design, and warnings, and found no abuse of discretion concerning discovery sanctions, jury exhibits, or alleged prejudicial remarks.

Holdings

1. The verdict for Verson was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the machine was sold without dies and therefore had no point of operation to guard, and Bautista failed to present evidence that the machine was unreasonably dangerous for lack of such a device at the time of sale.
2. The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence on the alleged design defect because conflicting expert and demonstration evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the machine was not unreasonably dangerous due to its dimensions.
3. The jury's finding that Verson's warning plate, manual, and verbal warnings were adequate was supported by credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose discovery sanctions because the record did not establish unsatisfied depositions, the plaintiff had not properly sought a ruling on interrogatories, the concealment allegations were unsupported, and the court had already allowed the plaintiff to reopen his case to present related evidence.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the life-sized sketch into the jury room because both parties extensively used the exhibit and considered it demonstrative of their respective theories.
6. The alleged remarks did not constitute prejudicial conduct sufficient to warrant reversal because the challenged comments were either invited or made outside the jury's presence, were addressed by a curative instruction, or were not sufficiently influential to affect the verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the jury's verdict for Verson was against the manifest weight of the evidence on the alleged absence of a point-of-operation safety device.
2. Whether the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence on the alleged defective design of the machine.
3. Whether the jury's finding that the warnings were adequate was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to impose discovery sanctions based on alleged nondisclosure or destruction of evidence.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a life-sized sketch of the machine to be taken into the jury room.
6. Whether remarks by defense counsel or a witness deprived Bautista of a fair trial and constituted reversible error.

Disposition

affirmed