Lewis v. Stran Steel Corp., 57 Ill. 2d 94

Summary

The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the evidence supported a jury finding that a manufacturer’s negligently or defectively bundled steel flooring proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court concluded that the foreseeability of the forklift handling and alleged misuse presented jury questions and reinstated the plaintiff’s judgment. Applying Indiana law, the court also affirmed dismissal of the manufacturer’s indemnity counterclaim against the plaintiff’s employer.

Holdings

1. The evidence presented a jury question on whether Stran Steel's negligent preparation of the bundle was a proximate cause of Lewis's injury. An intervening or concurrent force does not break causation when its intervention is probable and foreseeable, and the precise injury or concurrent cause need not have been foreseen.
2. Whether General American's handling of the flooring constituted reasonably foreseeable misuse, and whether the product defect was a proximate cause of Lewis's injury, were questions for the jury. General American's knowledge or assumption of risk was not imputable to Lewis.
3. Under Indiana law, Stran Steel's counterclaim failed to state a cause of action for indemnity because it alleged neither a contractual right to indemnity nor a principal-agent relationship, and Indiana law does not distinguish between active and passive negligence for this purpose.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence, viewed under the Pedrick standard, supported jury findings that Stran Steel's negligence proximately caused Lewis's injuries notwithstanding the forklift movement and floor hole.
2. Whether the evidence supported a strict-liability claim where the bundle was allegedly defective when it left Stran Steel's control and the injury followed foreseeable handling or misuse.
3. Whether the circuit court erred in giving plaintiff's jury instruction, admitting expert testimony, or refusing to reverse based on alleged attorney misconduct and closing argument.
4. Whether Stran Steel's counterclaim against General American stated a cause of action for indemnity under Indiana law.

Disposition

reversed