Coney v. J.L.G. Industries, Inc.
454 N.E.2d 197 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of comparative fault applies to strict products liability actions, meaning a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to their own misconduct. However, the adoption of comparative fault does not eliminate the common law doctrine of joint and several liability.
Facts:
- J. L. G. Industries, Inc. manufactured a hydraulic aerial work platform.
- Clifford M. Jasper was employed by V. Jobst & Sons, Inc.
- On January 24, 1978, Jasper operated the hydraulic aerial work platform as part of his employment.
- While operating the platform, Jasper sustained injuries that resulted in his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack A. Coney, administrator of Jasper’s estate, filed a strict products liability suit against J. L. G. Industries, Inc. in the circuit court of Peoria County.
- The defendant, J. L. G. Industries, Inc., filed affirmative defenses asserting that the fault of Jasper and his employer should be compared and that liability should be several, not joint.
- On the plaintiff's motion, the trial court struck the defendant's affirmative defenses.
- The trial court certified three questions for appeal to the intermediate appellate court.
- The appellate court denied the defendant's application for leave to appeal.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted the defendant, J. L. G. Industries, Inc., leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of comparative fault apply to actions seeking recovery under a theory of strict products liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Moran
Yes, the doctrine of comparative fault is applicable to strict products liability actions. Applying this doctrine aligns with the court's prior adoption of pure comparative negligence in Alvis v. Ribar, which sought to produce a more just and socially desirable distribution of loss. The court reasoned that 'total justice' is best achieved when damages are apportioned according to the relative fault of all parties. This approach resolves the anomaly of a plaintiff's misconduct (e.g., assumption of risk) acting as a complete bar in a strict liability claim but only as a damage-reducing factor in a negligence claim. The court rejected the argument that comparing a defective product to a plaintiff's negligence is like comparing 'apples and oranges,' stating that juries are capable of apportioning damages based on the causative contribution of each to the injury. Adopting comparative fault does not undermine the policies of strict liability; the manufacturer's liability remains strict, and the plaintiff is still relieved of proving negligence, but responsibility for damages is apportioned. Furthermore, the court held that the adoption of comparative fault does not abolish the doctrine of joint and several liability, reasoning that the burden of an insolvent tortfeasor should be borne by the other culpable defendants, not the injured plaintiff.
Analysis:
This landmark decision merges the doctrines of strict products liability and comparative fault in Illinois, fundamentally altering the landscape of tort law. By transforming the absolute defenses of assumption of risk and misuse into damage-reducing factors, the court made it possible for a wider range of plaintiffs to obtain at least partial recovery. The decision carefully preserves consumer protections by clarifying that a plaintiff's mere failure to discover a defect does not constitute fault. The retention of joint and several liability solidifies a pro-plaintiff stance, ensuring that the risk of an insolvent co-defendant falls upon other responsible parties rather than the injured victim, thereby reinforcing the principle of full compensation for actionable harm.
