Illinois Product Liability Rules to Evaluate Product Dangerousness Given By Appellate Court
A recent Illinois Appellate court decision on a product liability claim reviewed the elements needed to prove strict liability in an Illinois product liability claim. In Charles Salerno v. Innovative Surveillance Technology, Inc., No. 1-09-1402, the plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision, but for different reasons.
The basis of the product liability claims in Salerno are centered around an injury the plaintiff sustained while working in a surveillance cargo van manufactured by the defendant. The van contained a video periscope system. The plaintiff's injury occurred when he tried to stand inside the cargo van and struck his head on the metal periscope. According to the plaintiff's product liability complaint, his severe head trauma and resulting seizures could have been avoided if the defendant's product had not been unreasonably dangerous and defective.
The trial court granted the defendant manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the risk of being harmed by the periscope was open and obvious and that the defendant had no duty to protect the plaintiff from any resulting injuries.
Upon review, the Appellate Court was critical of the trial court's reason for dismissing the Illinois product defect lawsuit. In a prior decision the Illinois Supreme Court decided that a product's open and obvious risk of harm does not constitute an absolute defense in a strict liability count. While this defense may be considered as part of the risk-utility analysis it can not constitute the only factor.
The injured Illinois resident suffered shoulder, hip, and leg injuries as a result of the 
Pippen's complaint alleged that at the time he was purchasing the private jet he was under the impression that he was investing $1 million for a quarter-share of the plane and would only need to pay for expenses related to its use and upkeep. However, in reality the basketball player was purchasing 51 percent of the plane, taking out a loan of $5 million to do so. 
The trial court upheld the defendant's right to arbitrate and denied plaintiff's request for a jury trial. This arbitration clause issue was recently ruled on by the Illinois Supreme Court in 
Sergeant Wright comes from a military family and had dreamed of becoming a Marine ever since his childhood. He graduated from 
The events leading to the case began in 2005 when Perez's boyfriend, Baeza, was driving them home from a quinceañera, i.e. a coming of age celebration for a 15 year-old girl. Baeza had been drinking and was speeding along when his car left the roadway and struck a tree. He was later charged with an aggravated DUI.
The majority of the corporation's directors and officers alleged that they should be dismissed from the case because they had no knowledge of the fraud committed by Krupa, an officer of the corporation. The main issue in the plaintiffs' complaint was that Krupa had conned plaintiffs into giving him their money for a special "investment fund" he alleged was limited to the corporation's officers and directors. The issue before the Appellate Court was whether the remaining officers and directors are liable for Krupa's actions. 
While typically an Appellate Court will not overturn a jury's monetary awards since this is "an issue of fact for the jury to determine". Typically a jury's verdict awards will only be overturned if a party shows that the jury obviously ignored an established element of damages, that the award does not relate to the loss suffered, or if the verdict was the result of prejudice. 
While working at one of ConAgra's warehouses a forklift hit the plaintiff from behind. The force of the impact knocked the plaintiff to the ground, where the forklift ran over his right leg. The forklift in question was one of four machines that ConAgra had rented for use at its St. Charles, Illinois warehouse. 
According to reports, these cribs' product defect seems to result from a 
Vincent was brought on behalf of decedent Marjorie Vincent, alleging that defendant nursing home Alden-Park Strathmoor, Inc. caused personal injuries to decedent prior to her death while in defendant's care. Under Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint, the estate sought to reserve the right to seek punitive damages under a survival action in the Nursing Home Care Act for willful and wanton behavior. 
In Illinois, the amount of damages awarded is typically left up to the jury's discretion. The jury is given judge-approved jury instructions so that the jury can make an informed decision regarding its verdict. Oftentimes if a party disagrees with the verdict their appeal focuses on the content of these jury instructions. For example, in 
