Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.
864 N.E.2d 249, 224 Ill.2d 247, 309 Ill. Dec. 383 (2007)
Rule of Law:
The open and obvious nature of a product's danger, or its classification as a 'simple product,' does not create a per se exception to applying the risk-utility test in strict product liability design defect cases; rather, it is merely one factor to be weighed in the risk-utility analysis, which also applies to negligent product design claims.
Facts:
- Susan Calles purchased an Aim N Flame utility lighter approximately one week before the incident.
- Calles, aware of the dangers of lighters in children's hands, stored the Aim N Flame on the top shelf of her kitchen cabinet.
- On March 31, 1998, Calles left her 3-year-old twin daughters, Jenna and Jillian, in their beds while she left the house with another daughter.
- While Calles was away, Jenna used the Aim N Flame lighter to start a fire in the home.
- As a result of the fire, Jillian suffered smoke inhalation and died on April 21, 1998.
- The Aim N Flame utility lighter was designed without a child-resistant safety device.
- A technologically and economically feasible alternative design, incorporating a child-resistant safety device, existed at the time the Aim N Flame was manufactured.
- Scripto was aware of the desirability of a child-safety device and had been named as defendants in 25 similar lawsuits between 1996 and 2000.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Calles, individually and as administrator of Jillian’s estate, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Tokai (designer/manufacturer) and Scripto-Tokai (distributor, collectively 'Scripto'), alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties due to a defectively designed Aim N Flame lighter.
- Calles also filed a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Richard Fox and Loyola University Medical Center (collectively 'Loyola').
- Scripto filed counterclaims against Calles and Loyola, and Loyola filed a counter-complaint for contribution against Scripto.
- Scripto filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims brought by Calles and Loyola, arguing the Aim N Flame was not defective, they had no duty to make an adult product child resistant, no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers, and no breach of warranties.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Scripto on both Calles’ complaint and Loyola’s counter-complaint, finding no duty was owed or breached under any cause of action.
- Calles appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment regarding claims for failure to warn, but reversed summary judgment on the strict liability and negligent-design claims, holding that the Aim N Flame did not qualify as an 'especially simple device' for which risk-utility balancing was too obvious, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Scripto filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which was granted under Rule 315.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a product deemed 'simple' with 'open and obvious' dangers create a per se exception to the application of the risk-utility test in strict product liability design defect claims? 2. Did the appellate court err in concluding that the risk-utility test is inapplicable to negligent-product-design claims, thereby precluding summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burke
1. No, a product deemed 'simple' with 'open and obvious' dangers does not create a per se exception to the application of the risk-utility test in strict product liability design defect claims. The court clarified that Illinois employs two tests for strict liability design defects: the consumer-expectation test and the risk-utility test. Under the consumer-expectation test, the ordinary consumer of a lighter is an adult, and the Aim N Flame performed as an adult consumer would expect by producing a flame, even though a child's use was reasonably foreseeable. Thus, as a matter of law, the lighter was not unreasonably dangerous under the consumer-expectation test. However, the court explicitly rejected the 'simple product' exception to the risk-utility test, as adopted by some appellate courts following Scoby v. Vulcan-Hart Corp., determining that this exception was essentially a general rule that manufacturers are not liable for open and obvious dangers. The court reaffirmed its stance from Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., holding that the open and obvious nature of a risk is only one factor to be considered in the risk-utility analysis, not an absolute bar to liability. Policy reasons supporting this rejection include preventing manufacturers from avoiding liability when reasonable and feasible alternative designs exist, discouraging product improvements, and frustrating the prevention of future harm central to strict liability. Upon applying relevant factors for risk-utility analysis, the court found conflicting evidence regarding the feasibility and cost of alternative designs, creating a material issue of fact that precluded summary judgment. 2. No, the appellate court erred in concluding that the risk-utility test is inapplicable to negligent-product-design claims. The court clarified that there was no majority opinion in Blue that supported this conclusion. In a negligence claim, the focus is on the manufacturer's reasonable care in design. The open and obvious nature of a danger is a factor, but not dispositive. Given the conflicting evidentiary facts regarding the defectiveness of the Aim N Flame's design and Scripto's knowledge of potential risks, questions of fact existed as to whether Scripto exercised reasonable care. Therefore, summary judgment was precluded for the negligent product design claims as well.
Concurring - Justice Karmeier
Justice Karmeier concurred with the majority's ultimate conclusion that summary judgment was improper due to existing material questions of fact, and agreed that the Aim N Flame was not unreasonably dangerous under the consumer-expectation test. However, Justice Karmeier disagreed with the majority's reasoning for rejecting the 'simple product' exception. He argued that the majority misconstrued the 'simple product' exception as merely an 'open and obvious danger' defense, effectively 'reading the simple component out' of the Scoby framework. Justice Karmeier believed the Scoby exception applied only when a product was both 'simple' and had 'open and obvious' dangers. Nevertheless, he concluded that the Aim N Flame is not a 'simple product' and therefore the exception would not apply in this case, meaning the risk-utility test was properly evaluated by the majority, leading to the correct outcome of reversing summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in Illinois product liability law, definitively rejecting the 'simple product' exception and clarifying the role of 'open and obvious' dangers in design defect claims. By holding that these factors are merely elements within the risk-utility analysis, the court expands the potential for manufacturer liability and encourages the implementation of safer, feasible designs, even for seemingly straightforward products. The ruling also provides important guidance on the application of the risk-utility test to negligent design claims, reinforcing that a manufacturer's duty to design reasonably safe products is not negated by the obviousness of a danger. This decision makes it more challenging for manufacturers to secure summary judgment in design defect cases based solely on the simplicity or obvious danger of their products, fostering greater accountability for product safety.
