Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247

864 N.E.2d 249 (2007) · Supreme Court of Illinois · February 16, 2007 · No. No. 101089

Summary

The Supreme Court of Illinois considers whether a “simple product” with open and obvious dangers is exempt from the risk-utility test in a strict-liability design-defect case. The court holds that the open and obvious nature of a danger is not a per se bar to liability or to application of the risk-utility test, but is one factor in the analysis. The court also concludes that the Aim N Flame satisfied the consumer-expectation test because it functioned as intended, while determining that evidence concerning an alternative child-resistant design could support further analysis under the risk-utility test.

Holdings

  1. Illinois does not recognize a per se rule exempting simple products with open and obvious dangers from the risk-utility test. The open and obvious nature of a danger is only one factor in the risk-utility analysis.
  2. The Aim N Flame was not unreasonably dangerous under the consumer-expectation test because it performed as an ordinary adult consumer would expect when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, including use by a child.
  3. Summary judgment was improper on the strict-liability design-defect claim because conflicting evidence concerning the feasibility of alternative child-resistant designs and other risk-utility factors created material factual questions.
  4. The open and obvious nature of the lighter's danger is not dispositive of negligent-product-design claims. Because conflicting evidence existed concerning defect and foreseeability, summary judgment was improper.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Illinois recognizes a per se simple-product exception that prevents application of the risk-utility test when a product is simple and its dangers are open and obvious.
  2. Whether the Aim N Flame was unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law under the consumer-expectation test.
  3. Whether evidence concerning the feasibility of a child-resistant alternative design created a genuine issue of material fact under the risk-utility test.
  4. Whether the open and obvious nature of the lighter's danger barred the negligent-product-design claims or established that Scripto owed no duty as a matter of law.
  5. Whether summary judgment was proper on the strict-liability and negligent-product-design claims.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182 (1965)(followed)
  • Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill. 2d 510, 563 N.E.2d 449 (1990)(followed)
  • Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill. 2d 78, Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill. 2d 78, 828 N.E.2d 1128 (2005)(followed in part)
  • Scoby v. Vulcan-Hart Corp., 211 Ill. App. 3d 106, 569 N.E.2d 1147 (1991)(rejected)
  • Todd v. Societe Bic, S.A., 21 F.3d 1402 (7th Cir. 1994)(rejected)
  • Coney v. J.L.G. Industries, Inc., 97 Ill. 2d 104, 454 N.E.2d 197 (1983)(followed)
  • Anderson v. Hyster Co., 74 Ill. 2d 364, 385 N.E.2d 690 (1979)(followed)
  • Hansen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 198 Ill. 2d 420, 764 N.E.2d 35 (2002)(followed)
  • Doser v. Savage Manufacturing & Sales, Inc., 142 Ill. 2d 176, 568 N.E.2d 814 (1990)(followed)
  • Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 554 N.E.2d 223 (1990)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Illinois Supreme Court