Richelman v. Kewanee MacHinery & Conveyor Co.
16 Ill. Dec. 778, 59 Ill. App. 3d 578, 375 N.E.2d 885 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer's duty in product liability extends to injuries that are objectively reasonable to expect, and an injury is not unforeseeable as a matter of law simply because the victim is a child if the product's design defect could also foreseeably injure a broader class of users, such as adults. In such cases, the question of foreseeability is ordinarily a factual issue for the jury to resolve.
Facts:
- In 1965, Kewanee Machinery and Conveyor Company designed its Model 260 Auger.
- During the design process, the engineer based the safety guard's 4 5/8-inch bar spacing solely on his own size 12-B shoe, admittedly not considering the safety of bystanders or children, despite knowing augers are used on farms where children are present.
- The company was aware of a safer, commercially available screen-type guard but chose to implement a vertical bar guard that was less safe than a parallel guard it had previously used.
- In 1967, Arthur Richelman purchased the Kewanee Model 260 Auger and placed it in his farm yard.
- Mark Richelman, his 2-year-9-month-old grandson, lived with his parents in a mobile home on the same farm, approximately 30 feet from his grandparents' house.
- On November 17, 1972, while the auger was in operation, Mark's mother took him to play on the enclosed porch of the grandparents' house.
- Shortly thereafter, Mark was found with his right leg entangled in the auger's hopper, resulting in a traumatic amputation.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Richelman, by his parents, sued Kewanee Machinery and Conveyor Company in the circuit court of St. Clair County, Illinois, a trial court.
- The suit was based on theories of strict product liability and negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $75,000.
- The defendant, Kewanee Machinery and Conveyor Company, appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District.
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 an injury to a young child who becomes entangled in a farm auger unforeseeable as a matter of law when the auger's safety guard was designed with gaps wide enough to foreseeably injure not only small children but also many adults?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice George J. Moran
No, the injury was not unforeseeable as a matter of law. A manufacturer's liability encompasses injuries that are objectively reasonable to expect, and this case presents a factual question for the jury. The key distinction from precedent like Winnett v. Winnett is that the defect here—the 4 5/8-inch gap in the safety guard—posed a foreseeable risk not only to a small child but also to any adult with a narrower foot than the design engineer's. The real question is whether the defendant could objectively expect that if someone with a smaller than 4 5/8-inch shoe width were to trip or fall near the auger, they could be injured. Since reasonable people could differ on this question of foreseeability, it was properly submitted to the jury.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jones
Yes, the injury was unforeseeable as a matter of law. This case is factually indistinguishable from Winnett v. Winnett, which held that a manufacturer cannot reasonably foresee that a young child will be permitted to approach and be injured by operating farm machinery. The fact that an adult might also be injured by the machine is irrelevant; the foreseeability analysis must focus on this specific plaintiff. Furthermore, the danger of the auger was open and obvious and generic to its function, meaning the product was not 'unreasonably dangerous.' The court should have found as a matter of law that the injury was not objectively reasonable for the defendant to expect.
Analysis:
This decision refines and limits the Illinois Supreme Court's holding in Winnett v. Winnett, clarifying that a manufacturer cannot automatically escape liability for injuries to children near dangerous machinery. By shifting the focus from the victim's status as a child to the nature of the design defect, the court establishes that if a defect poses a risk to a broad class of foreseeable users (including adults), the foreseeability of a child's injury becomes a question of fact for the jury. This prevents defendants from using a child's presence as a per se bar to recovery and reinforces the jury's role in determining what is 'objectively reasonable to expect' in product design.
