Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.
329 N.E.2d 785 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of strict products liability does not extend to the seller of a used product who did not create the product's defect and is outside the original producing and marketing chain.
Facts:
- On June 11, 1971, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company sold a used 1965 Chevrolet automobile.
- The complaint alleged that at the time of sale, the car's braking system was defective due to missing springs, a worn-out brake shoe, and a missing part of a cylinder system.
- The complaint did not allege that the defects existed when the car left the manufacturer or that Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company created them.
- On September 3, 1971, the used Chevrolet struck 11-year-old Maradean Peterson and 8-year-old Mark Peterson as they were walking home from school.
- Maradean Peterson died from her injuries the day of the accident.
- Mark Peterson sustained severe injuries, including the amputation of a leg.
Procedural Posture:
- James A. Peterson sued Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company and others in the circuit court of Winnebago County (trial court) on a theory of strict liability.
- The circuit court dismissed the strict liability counts against Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company.
- The plaintiffs (appellees) appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Court reversed the circuit court's dismissal, holding that the strict liability claim could proceed.
- Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois (highest court).
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 strict products liability extend to a seller of a used automobile for defects that arose after the car left the control of the manufacturer and original chain of distribution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Schaefer
No. Strict liability does not apply to a seller of a used product who is outside the original producing and marketing chain. The policy justifications for imposing strict liability on manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers—namely, that they created the risk and are in a position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to improve safety—do not apply to a dealer in used goods. A manufacturer or original retailer can seek indemnity from the party that created the defect, but a used car dealer cannot. To impose strict liability here would effectively make the used car dealer an insurer against defects that arose after the original chain of distribution was completed and while the product was controlled by one or more consumers. This expansion of public policy is a matter for the legislature, which has only addressed the issue in a very limited way through the Consumer Fraud Act.
Dissenting - Justice Goldenshersh
Yes. The same public policy considerations that justify imposing strict liability on all other elements of a product's distribution system apply with equal force to a used car dealer. A used car dealer has a duty to conduct a reasonable inspection of a vehicle before selling it. Strict liability should be imposed for defects that would have been discovered upon such a reasonable inspection. There is no logical basis for distinguishing between a defect created by a used car dealer's own repairs and a pre-existing defect that the dealer failed to discover and remedy through a reasonable inspection. Because other commercial entities that place vehicles into the stream of commerce, like lessors, are subject to strict liability, so too should be used car dealers.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of strict products liability in Illinois by creating a clear distinction between sellers in the original chain of distribution and sellers of used goods. It establishes that the doctrine's reach ends once a product has been sold to a consumer and later re-enters the market. The ruling protects sellers of used products from being held liable for defects they did not create, forcing plaintiffs injured by used goods to pursue claims under negligence or warranty theories, which have a higher burden of proof. This precedent solidifies the 'stream of commerce' theory as being central to strict liability, focusing responsibility on those who first create a risk and profit from it.
Unlock the full brief for Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.