Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co.
17 F.3d 209 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability case, a plaintiff can defeat a motion for summary judgment using circumstantial evidence by showing the accident would not have occurred without a product defect and that it is reasonably plain the defect was not introduced after the product was sold. The plaintiff is not required to exclude every remote or fantastic possibility of a post-sale cause for the defect.
Facts:
- On January 18, 1991, Karen Godfrey purchased a 24-ounce vacuum-sealed jar of Planters peanuts at a K-Mart for Richard Welge.
- To obtain a rebate, Godfrey used an Exacto knife to cut the bar code portion off the jar's label.
- Godfrey then placed the jar on top of her refrigerator.
- About a week later, Welge opened the jar, took some peanuts, and replaced the cap without incident.
- On February 3, 1991, Welge took the jar down again, and as he pushed the plastic cap back onto the jar with normal force, the glass jar shattered.
- The shattering jar severely cut Welge's hand, causing what he claimed was a permanent impairment.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Welge filed a products liability suit in federal district court against K-Mart, Planters, and Brockway, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- After the completion of pretrial discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that Welge had failed to exclude possible causes of the accident other than a defect introduced during the manufacturing process.
- Welge, the plaintiff, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Illinois law, can a plaintiff in a products liability case defeat a motion for summary judgment by presenting evidence that makes it reasonably probable the product's defect existed before the sale, without needing to definitively exclude every other possible post-sale cause of the defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
Yes. A plaintiff in a products liability suit can defeat summary judgment without excluding every remote possibility that the defect was caused by someone other than a defendant. A non-defective jar does not shatter when normal force is used to put on its lid, so the jar must have been defective. The testimony of Welge and Godfrey, if believed, excludes all reasonable possibility that the defect was introduced after the jar was purchased from K-Mart. The court reasoned that the principle underlying res ipsa loquitur applies: an accident can itself be evidence of liability if it is the kind that would not occur without a defect and it's reasonably plain the defect wasn't introduced after sale. The plaintiff does not need to rule out fantastic or remote possibilities like 'elves' damaging the jar. Furthermore, under strict liability, the seller (K-Mart) is liable for defects present at the time of sale, regardless of which party in the upstream chain of distribution (Planters or Brockway) introduced it.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in products liability cases at the summary judgment stage. It establishes that plaintiffs can rely on circumstantial evidence and logical inference, akin to res ipsa loquitur, to create a triable issue of fact. The decision lowers the barrier for plaintiffs, preventing defendants from defeating valid claims by simply hypothesizing remote, unsupported alternative causes for a product's failure. It reinforces the core principle of strict liability, holding retailers responsible for defects in the products they sell, regardless of their origin in the supply chain.
Unlock the full brief for Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co.