Kopczick v. Hobart Corp.
308 Ill. App. 3d 967, 242 Ill. Dec. 490, 721 N.E.2d 769 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For punitive damages to be awarded in a product liability case, the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with willful and wanton disregard for safety, which requires evidence of knowledge of an unreasonably dangerous condition that is more substantial than a small number of prior incidents relative to the total number of products sold and used.
Facts:
- In 1979, Hobart Corporation began developing the Model 5700, a meat saw with its blade set at a 75-degree angle, theorizing it would reduce operator fatigue.
- A November 1981 internal test report noted the saw produced some "wedge cuts" and that the blade was occasionally pulled into the meat; Hobart subsequently made modifications to the saw's blade stabilization.
- From 1982 to 1992, Hobart sold 5,816 Model 5700 saws, which were used for an estimated 4.5 billion cuts of meat.
- In 1984, a meatcutters' union official, Anthony Testa, sent a letter to Hobart stating that many butchers found the saw "very dangerous" and that some had "severed fingers" using it.
- Prior to 1993, Hobart received notice of 30 incidents where meatcutters claimed they were injured due to the Model 5700's tendency to self-feed or pull meat into the blade.
- On May 22, 1993, Richard Kopczick, a meat-market manager for D&S Foods, was operating a Model 5700 saw when his left index finger was severed and his middle finger was lacerated.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Kopczick filed a complaint against Hobart Corporation in the Circuit Court of Grundy County, an Illinois trial court, alleging negligence and willful and wanton conduct.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Kopczick, awarding $553,644.74 in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Hobart Corporation filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) concerning the punitive damages award, which the trial court denied.
- Hobart Corporation, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, where Kopczick was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of 30 prior similar accidents, along with internal company documents and expert testimony, sufficient to establish that a manufacturer acted with willful and wanton disregard for safety, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Slater
No. The evidence was insufficient to support the punitive damages award because it did not establish that Hobart Corporation acted with willful and wanton disregard for the rights of others. To justify punitive damages, a plaintiff must show the manufacturer had awareness that its product was unreasonably dangerous and failed to act. The court, applying the factors from Loitz v. Remington Arms Co., found that 30 prior incidents were insufficient notice when compared to the 5,816 units sold and the estimated 4.5 billion uses; these 'meager percentages' do not show Hobart was unable to maintain a good-faith belief in the product's safety. The court dismissed other evidence, such as the 1981 test results (which led to modifications on the saw Kopczick used), the general 'Testa Letter' (which did not mention the specific self-feeding defect), and the plaintiff's expert testimony, as speculative and insufficient to prove Hobart's pre-injury knowledge of an unreasonably dangerous defect. Misconduct during litigation is not a basis for punitive damages arising from the underlying tort.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and raises the evidentiary standard for awarding punitive damages in Illinois product liability cases. By strictly applying the quantitative analysis from the Loitz precedent, the court makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to sustain punitive awards against manufacturers of mass-produced goods, especially those that are inherently dangerous. The ruling emphasizes that mere notice of some prior similar accidents is insufficient; the notice must be of such a 'magnitude and character' that it negates any good-faith belief the manufacturer had in its product's safety. This case serves as a strong precedent limiting punitive damages to situations where a manufacturer's conscious disregard for a known, unreasonable danger is clearly and substantially proven.
