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 risk-utility analysis involves reviewing a given product's design and analyzing whether the risk of harm from the relevant defect outweigh its utility. If there is more risk involved then it is considered dangerous and the manufacturer is liable for any resulting harm.In reviewing Salerno the Appellate Court set out very specific rules to evaluate a product's dangerousness:
(1) That the manufacturer deviated from the standard of care that other manufacturers in the industry followed at the time the product was designed, or
(2) knew or should have known, in the exercise of ordinary care, that the product was unreasonably dangerous and that it failed to warn of the product’s dangerous propensity.
Upon reviewing the case, the Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had stated he had "nothing to criticize" in the defendant's design and had not brought any expert testimony to testify on what the design defect was and how it could or should have been altered. Therefore the plaintiff had not established any basis for his Illinois product liability claim so the defendant could not be held liable for any failure to warn.
Kreisman Law Offices has been handling Illinois product liability cases for over 30 years, serving those areas in and around Cook County, including Chicago, Glenview, Morton Grove, and Bolingbrook.
Similar blog posts:
Auto Defect Case to be Reviewed by Illinois Supreme Court
Illinois Product Liability Claim Underscores the Importance of Filing a Well-Drafted Complaint
]]>
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 
The plaintiff's ex-husband had worked at B&O Railroad as a steelworker, welder, railroad firefighter and laborer from 1951 to 1965. During the majority of his employment he was exposed to asbestos in his work environment. The plaintiff's lawsuit alleged that she had contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos on her husband's work clothes and asserted that the railroad had negligently failed to take proper precautions to protect its employees' families from 
Firefighters were investigating the cause of the railroad fire and have identified the source as railroad ties catching fire on the train track between the Red Line's Chicago Avenue and Clark/Division stops. While it is currently unclear what caused the fire, Chicago Fire Department representatives have indicated that Chicago's summer heat occasionally causes the railroad ties to catch fire, but is more common on elevated trains than subway trains. Yesterday the high in Chicago was 78 degrees Fahrenheit. 
The