## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3855 D ONAL D M AL EN an d S HARON M ALEN, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. M TD P RODUC TS, I NC . an d H OM E D EPOT U .S.A ., I NC ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C6478

— Ch arl es R. N orgle,Sr .,Ju dge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 27, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 19, 2010

Befo reE A STE RB ROOK

, Chief Ju dge, andE VANS and W ILLIAMS

, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Ci r c u i tJ udg e . D on ald M ale n slip p ed w h ile g et tingo ffhi s r ec o ndi ti o ne d r i di ngl awn mowera nd inj ure d his f oot on th e rotating bla d e. H e and his w ife su ed th e m an ufac tu r era nd s el l er, c l ai m i ngtha t th e m o werwas de fec ti ve i n de si g n a nd c o ns truct i o n. The2 N o. 08

- 3855

ANSI i s a v olunt a r y or ga ni z a t i ontha tde ve l op s n a t i on wi de 1 con sensu s stand ard s for a v ariety of de v ices an d p ro ced u res. 

### (continued...) di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t f o r the de fen dants because und i sputed evi dence es tabl i shed that M al e n’ s o wn a c t i o ns we r e the s o l e p r o xi mat e c a us e ofhi s inj ury. But vi ew i ng the r ec or d i n the l i ght m ost fav or ab le t o th e p lain tiffs an d ta kin g a ll infe r e n c es in th ei r f avor, w e co nc l ude tha t a j ur y c o ul d fi nd tha t th e m ower was bo th defecti ve and the p ro x im ate cause o f M alen’s inj ury. Th erefore, w e reverse th e d istri ct cou rt’s gr ant o fsum m ary j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe defe nd ants and rem and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I . B AC KGR OUND B e f o r e h i s i nj ur y M a l e n h a d o p e r a t e d r i d i n gl a wn mowe r s f o r mo r e tha n 4 0 y e a r s . In 2 0 0 1 h e p ur c ha sed a Yar d- M anr i di ngmowera t H o m e Depo t tha t was manuf actur ed by M TD Pro du cts i n 199 8 a nd adver ti sed as “Recondi ti oned Pow er Eq uipm ent” w i th a “Ful l M anufa ctu r er ’ s W ar r an ty
. ” The mowerwas de signe d wi tha safet y in ter l ocksy ste m . One co m ponent o fthatsy ste m i s the Operat orPre sence Contro l, orOPC , a devi ce whi c h k i l l s th e e n g i n e i f th e o p e r a t o r r i s e s fr o m t he se atwi th o utfi r stdi sen g ag i ngthe c ut tingb l ade a nd se tt i ng th e par k i ng br ak e. A s ec o nd co m po ne nt is the “n o c uti n r ev er se ” swi tc h, o r N C R , w hi chk i l l s th e engi ne i fthe oper ato r shi fts i nt o re ver se w i thout fi rs t d i s e n g a g i n gth e b l a d e . T h e A me r i c a n N a t i o n a l S t a n d a r ds I ns titute ( “A N SI ”) did not m ake a n N C Rcom p ulsory 1N o. 08

- 3855 3



### (...continued) A dams v. N. Il l
. G as C o. , 80 9 N .E .2d 1 2 4 8 , 12 5 4 n .2 (I ll. 2 0 0 4 ). A N SI s tan d a rd s prov ide evidence ofthe cus tom or pract ic e w ith in an in d u str y . L ea v itt v
. F a rw ell To w erL td . P ’sh ip , 625 N
. E.2d 4 8 , 53 (Ill. A p p . C t. 1 9 9 3 ). unti l 20 03, but by 1996 t he o rg ani zati on had m andated that ri ding m owers had t o have an OPC that w i l l st op the e ng i ne a nd full y arr e s tthe b l a de wi thin fi v e s e c o nd s of bei ng tri ggered
. Be fore M alen p urc ha s e d t he m ow er, he tes ted i t und er the supervi si on of a H om e D ep ot sal es em plo yee . Duri ng t h at tes t r i de M al en neve r ro se fro m the sea t with the e ngi ne r unning, but i t i s no t di sp u te d th at h e o p er at ed th e m ac h in e in rev er se w h ile the b l a de wa s e ng a g e d. A l ab elo n the m o weri n fr o nto fthe s ea t war ns the op er at or to p ro te c t a ga in st d ea th or s er iou s inj u ry : D O N O T O P E R A T E T H E U N IT W H E R E IT COU LD S LI P OR TI P.

. . . . BE S URE BLA D E ( S ) AN D EN GI N E ARE S TO P P E D B E F O R E P L AC I NG HA ND S OR FE E T N E A RBL A D E (S)
.

. . . . B E FO R E L E A V IN G T H E O P E R A T O R ’S P O SIT I O N, D I S E NG AG E B L AD E ( S ) , P LA CE T HE S HI F T L E V E RI N NEUT R AL , E NG AG E T HE PARK I N G BRAK E, S H UT OFF AN D REM OVE KEY.4 N o. 08

- 3855 M al enha d r ea d a nd un der st o o d the se admoni sh

m en t s , a n d o v e r th e n e x t th r e e y e a r s h e o p e r a t e d t he m ow er 30 to 50 tim es w ith ou t in c id en t. B u t t h en in October20 04 he w as m u l chi ng l eave s with the m ower and w edged t h e right fro nt ti re o vera curb. H e t ri ed w ith ou t s u c c es s t o fre e t h e m ac h in e b y ro c kin g h is w e ig h t in th e seat an d shifti ng gears betw een f orw ard an d r ev er se. At tha t po i ntM al enr ai se d the c ut ting deck, r em ove d his f oo t fro m the pedal w hi ch enga ges th e blad e, an d started to dism ou nt
. Bu t he d id n ot tu rn o ffthe e ng i ne o r l i s t e n t o c o nfi r m whe ther the b l a de had sto pp ed spi nning. I t had not
. A s M ale n rose fro m the s eatand ste pp ed offthe m ower, hi s l eft foo t s li pp ed under the cut tingde cka nd was s truckb y the r o ta ting blad e. T he l acera tions to th e sole ofhis f oot w ere se ve re , an d h e w ill no t re ga infu ll us e o f h is foo t. It is und i sputed that nei therthe OPC northe N C R funct i o ne d wh e n the a c c i de nto c c ur r e d. T he M al ens s ued M TD Pro du cts and H om e Depot in the Ci rcui t Cour t o fCookCounty, I l l i noi s. Donal d M al en ass er ted c o mm o n- l a w c l a i ms f or st ri ct pr oducts l i abi l i ty and negl i gence , and hi s wife cl ai m ed l oss o f c o n s o r t i um . T h e Ma l e n s c o n t e n d e d th a tth e l a wn m ower m anufa cture d by M TD Pro du cts and sol d by H om e Depot w as negl i gentl y m anufa cture d and un re asonab l y dange ro us bec ause i ts OPC wa s n ot connect ed an d thus inope r ab l e. The y a l so c o nt en ded th atthe m ower was negl i gently desi gned beca use M TD Pro du cts had shunn ed a “ f ai l sa fe” sys tem thatwould have m ade the c ut tingbl ade unu sabl e ev enwi th o utthe OPC co nne ct ed. F i na l l y, the pl aint if fs c l ai m ed th atthe de fen -N o. 08

- 3855 5 dants had f ai l ed to warn the op er ator about the defects i n the m ower. The defendants r em ove d the s uitto fed er al c ou rtu n d er d ive rs ity j u ris d ict ion
. See 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1332 , 14 41. At hi s depo si ti on D ona l d M al eng av e th e f o l l o wi ng acc ou nt of his acc iden t. W he n th e ri gh t front tire dr o pped o ve r the c urb an d b ec ame we dge d agai ns t i t, he tried to fre e t h e m ow er by shifting betw een f orw ard an d re ve r s e a n d r o c k i n gi n th e s e a twi th th e e n g i n e r u nning . Whe n thi s e ff o r twa s u ns uc c e s s ful, Mal e n de ci ded to dism ount a nd l i ft the fro nt o fthe m ow er back a top the c urb. H e l i fted hi s foo t fro m the p ed al which engages t h e cutt i ng bl ade; thateff or t, M al en tho ught, h ad st op p ed th e b lad e, bu t h e a c kn ow led ge d th e p os sib ility th at th e p ed a l h ad be en loc ke d int o th e “ on ” p os iti on a nd thatr em ovinghi s foo t fro m the pedal had not unlo cked i t. I t was n ot h is pr acti ce, M al en added, to di smoun t a r i di ngmowerwi ththe b l ade s pi nni ng, b ut the e ngi ne was sti l l r unning s o he co uld nothear w hetherthe bl ade was ro tat i ng. M al en, wh o did not k no w tha t th e m o wer was de si g ne d wi tha n OPC o r NCR, th enr o se fr o m hi s se ata nd puthi s l eft f o o t o n the gr ound w hi l e s w i ngi ng hi s r i ght l eg acr oss the m ower to the l eft. H e sli p p ed , and the blad e cau gh t his l eft f oo t a n d pull ed hi m to the gr ound. H e t est i fi ed i ni ti al ly th at the b l ade st ruck hi s bo ot and sto pp ed f or two t o s i x s econds b efo r e r es um i ngi ts r o ta ti o n a nd cutti ng hi m wh en he tr i ed p u l l i ng hi s foo t a w ay. Lateri n the depo siti on, however, M al en sa i d “no” w hen speci fi cal l y a ske d w hetherthe bl ade had stop p ed o n fi rs t co ntact w i th hi s bo ot. Thi s a pp ar en t inco nsi ste ncy6 N o. 08

- 3855

w as ne ver clarified. A cco r d ing to M alen, the en tire or deal

— fro m th e tim e he d ro ve off th e cu rb u n til h is f o o twa s c utb y the b l a de

— l as ted “be tw een 1 0 a nd 20 secon d s.” A nd , he said , i t w as a “ very sh ort tim e,” m ore th an th e “ c l a p o f a h an d ” b u t p ro b ab ly on ly “ a c ou p le ofse con d s, ” be tw een the ti m e he ro se fro m the sea t and w hen hi s foo t was sl i ced by the b l ade. T h e d efe n d a n ts d isp u te M ale n ’s t es tim on y. T h ey rely o n the t r ea tmentno te s o fDr
. Nar en dr a Pa te l, the emer g en cy - r oom s ur g eo n who r epa i r ed th e l ac er at i o ns on the so l e o fM ale n ’s f oo t. In hi s no tes Dr. Pate l wrote th atM al enha d t r i ed to di sl o dge the mowerb y pl an ting hi s l eft f o o t o n the g r o und, l if ting the mowerb y the ste er i ng wh eel, and ste pp i ng o n the speed cont ro l
. Yet at hi s deposi tion D r. P ate l co uld notr ecal l the sour ce ofthi s a ccou n t. A nd he c onceded thatthe scenar i o desc rib ed in h is t r e a tm en t n ot es w ou ld h av e re su lte d in l acer ati ons to the t op, notthe sol e, o fM al en’ s foo t. M al en d id no t r ec al l t el l i ngDr
. Pa te l ho w the acci dent happened
. A nd Don ald P acheco , a m echani cal engi neerr eta i ned by M al en, re j ec ted the chai n ofev ents des cr ibe d b y Dr
. Pa te l
. Pache co o pi ne d tha t th e r i di ng m ow er co u ld n oth a v e be en lifted by sim u lta n eo u sly d ep re ss in g t h e s p e e d c on tr ol (w h at M T D P ro d u c ts ca lls th e “g o ” peda l ) a nd pul l i ngo n the st eering whee l
. The o pp o s i ngf o r c e s fr o m t he s e ac t i o ns , P a c he c o s a i d, w ou ld h ave ca nc eled ea ch other. Pacheco’ s ini ti ali nspecti on had veri fi ed that the m ower cou l d b e o pe r a t e d i n f o r wa r d, ne ut r a l, a nd r e v e r s e with the c utti ng blad e en gag ed and no weight i n the sea t.N o. 08

- 3855 7 A notheri nspecti on co nd uc te d j oi ntl y with pers onnel fr o m M TD Pr o duct s r epr o duce d th i s r es ul t, whi ch, the par ti es a g r e e , c o u l d n o th a v e h a p p e n e d i fth e O PC and N CR were functi oni ng. Cl ose exam i na tio n di scl ose d that the wi r i ngf o r the OP C a nd NCRwa s n o tc o nn e c t e d. The c o nt ac ts wer e g r i m y, s o Pa ch ec o kne w tha t th e wi r es ha d no t be enc o nne ct ed f o r s o m e ti m e. And afte r r emov i ngthe di r t, he di d no t fi nd s cr at ch es o n a ny o fthe c o nt ac ts, so he c o nc l ude d tha t ne i th ero fthe safetydevi ces had bee n connect ed i n the fi rs t pl ace. M or eov er, Pacheco was cer tain that the NC R w as not connect ed w hen H om e Dep ot sol d the r eco nd i ti oned m achi ne, since M alen ha d run the m ower in re ver se w i th t h e b lade eng age d w hi l e t est i ng i t a t the st or e. Dur i ngthe j o i nti ns pec ti o n, the wi r es t o the OPC a nd the NC R w er e atta ched, and after w ar d both devi ces fu n c tio n ed p ro p er ly. T h e cu tt in g b lad e c am e t o a fu ll st op 2.6 s ec on d s a fte r t h e O P C w as trig ge re d , w ell bel ow the exi sting ( and curr ent) A N SIl i m i t. B as ed on h is in sp ec tio n s an d re vie w of M al e n ’ s d ep os iti on, Pacheco o pined thatthe safety i nter l ocksy ste m o n M al en’ s r eco nd i ti oned m ower was defectiv e. Pacheco su r m i se d tha t M al enha d i na dve r te nt l y de pr es se d a nd l ock ed the pedal w h ich enga ges the cutti ng bl ade. That pedal, had i t be en unl ocked , w oul d have di senga ged the b l ade wh en M alen rem ove d his f oo t. S ti l l, Pacheco i nsi ste d, the OPC and N CR s h ou l d have pro tect ed M al ena g ains t a bl ade tha t was l o ck ed i n the “ o n” po si ti o n. A func ti o ni ngOPC, he r ea so ne d, woul d ha ve k i l l ed th e en g i ne as so o n as M al en r o se fr o m th e se at w ith the bl ade e ng a g e d. T he v e r y p ur po s e o fa n OP C, P a c he co8 N o. 08

- 3855 expla i ned, i s t o safeguard an o perat orwh o negl ects to st o p th e bl ade be f o r e di smoun ting, e. g . , when cl ea r i ng an ob s t a c l e fr o m t he p a th o fthe mo we r . Li k e wi s e, Pacheco continued , a functi oni ng N CR would have shut dow n the engi ne as so on a s M al en put the m ower i n re ver se w i thout fi rs t di senga gi ng the bl ade. Pa ch ec o a l so r epo r te d tha t a “ f ai l s afe” v er si o n o fthe O PC w as ava il able for t his Y ard -M an m od el w ellbefore M al enpur ch as ed hi s r ec o ndi ti o ne d uni t. Pa ch ec o e xpla i ne d thatan OPC em plo ys a s w i tch t o al l ow or i nhibi t the fl ow o fan e l ectr i c cur re nt. The OPC uti l i zed w hen M al en’ s m ow er w as bui l t in 199 8 was co nfi gure d w ith a “norm all y closed ” d efault: as long as th e op erator’s w ei ght r em ai ned i n the se at , the OPC swit ch w oul d stay “o pen ” an d pr ev en t cur r en t fr o m pa ss i ng . Butifthe o per at o r r o se fr o m the s ea t wi ththe bl ade e ng ag ed, the sw i tch would r evert to i ts “nor m al l y c l ose d” posi ti on and al l ow curre nt to pass and act i vate a ki l l swit ch on the e ng i ne . I fa n OP C o fthi s de s i g n i s n o tc o nn e c t e d, Pa ch ec o c o nt i nue d, no c ur r en t wi l l e ver r ea cha nd tr igg er th e k ill s w itc h, w h et h er or n otth er e is w eig h t in th e s ea t. I n e ffec t, an u n c on n ec te d O P C of th is d es ign is n o d iffer en t t h an h av in g a n op er at or in t h e s ea t a t a ll ti m es. By the ti m e M al en’ s m ower was bui l t, Pacheco no te d, M TD Pr o duct s al r eady h ad r ede si g ne d the OPC to b e “n o r m al l y o pen . ” The ne w ve r si on emplo y ed th e o per at o r ’ s w eight inthe s ea t to c l o se a s wi tc h a nd al l ow c u rrent to pass; i fthe ci rcui t was o pen

— ei ther because the o perat orwas not i n the sea t o r the OPC w as unconnected

— the e n gine coul d not r un. I n J une 199 9 a service kit w as d evel o p ed to retrofit existing m ow ersN o. 08

- 3855 9

w i th the new d esi gn, and aft erDecem ber19 99 the ne w d es ign w as i ncor pora ted i nto al l newly m anufa cture d unit s. M TD Pro du cts d id noti ssue a r ecal l f orthe ser vi ce k i t
. Pa c he c o i ns t a l l e d o ne o n M a l e n’ s mowe r a nd then d isconne ct ed a wi r e to t es t whethe r the r ede si g ne d OPC was “f ai l sa fe. ” Aft er th e OPC was di sc o nne cted , the engi ne di ed i fthe cutti ng bl ade was engag ed. Pacheco opi ned that M al en’ s inj ury coul d not hav e o ccurr ed w i th th e n ew d es ign be c au se th e c u tt in g b lad e w as u n u s ab le un l e s s the OP C wa s c o nn e c t e d. Pacheco’ s a sse ssm en t i s co rr obo ra ted bydeposi ti on tes ti m ony fro m se ver alem plo yee s of M TD Pro du cts. M a r kHo l l and, the c o mpa ny ’ s Man a g e r o fS t a nd a r ds Com pli ance, te ste d M al en’ s m ower (bef or e Pa c heco i ns ta l l ed th e se r vi ce k i t) a nd c o nfi r m ed that its e ng i ne and bl ade di d not s top when he rose fro m the sea t o r p u t t h e m ac h in e in re v e rs e. A c c or d in g t o H olla n d , i f all th e sy st ems we r e func tioningc o r r ec tly, the e ng i ne sh o ul d ha ve s hutdo wn. M i ch ae l M i l l er, a v i ce pr es i den t o fpr o ductde ve l o pm en t an d s afety, t es ti fi ed th atthe OPC was re desi gned to be “nor m al l y o pen” beca use th e “no rm all y closed ” vers io n con tinu ed to draw curre n t a n d d r a inth e b at te ry if th e o p er at or ina d ve rt en tly l eft the ke y in the i gni ti on. Gun terPl am per, the vi ce presi dent ofsa fety, co nceded that M TD Pro du cts kn ew th at th e m ow er as orig in all y d es ign ed w ou ld st ill oper ate i fi ts safetyi nter l ocksy st em fail ed. H e a l so acknowle dged that the r i ding m ower purchas ed by M al en w as desi gned so th at user s coulddi sco nnect the OPC o r N C R a nd st i l l us e th e m o wer, b uthe i ns i st ed th atthe t wo de v i c e s c o ul d n o ta c c i de nt a l l y b e c o me di s con ne c t e d.10 N o. 08

- 3855 Pl am per authenti cate d a m anage m ent d i re cti ve that new co nsum erpro du cts be e val uated befor e pr oduc tion wi tha n e y e to war d “ po ss ibl e h az ar ds r el at ed to the u se an d /or m isu se of th e p ro d u c t.” M T D Prod uc ts an d H om e D ep ot m oved f or sum m ary j u d gm en t. T h e d efe n d an ts ar gu ed th at th e Y ar d -M an so ld to M al en was not unreas onabl y d an gerous because the s ourc e o fthe danger

— the r ota ti ng cutt i ng bl ade, acco rdi ng to the defe nd ants

— w as open a n d obvi ous t o al l user s o fthe product. M al en kne w the i nherentr i sk, the defenda n ts insi ste d, because hi s no rm alprac ti ce afte r 4 0 y ea r s o fus i ngr i di ngl awn mower s was to di se ngag e the bl ade befor e di sm ountin g. A nd the parti cul ar mowe r w as n o tde fe c t i v e , the de fe nd a nt s c o nt i nu e d, be ca us e i ts OPC

— when i t was connec te d a fte r the ac ci den t

— fun ctione d i n co m pl i an ce w ith A N SI st an dar ds, a nd M al en ’ s ev i den ce ha d no t ex cl ude d the p ossibi l i ty that a thi rd party di sco nnected the safety devi ce s be f o r e M al enpur ch as ed th e m o wer . The de fen dants al so i nsi ste d M al en’ s o w n cond uct, nota defe ct in t h e m ower, was the proxi m ate cause o fhi s inj ury. M al enha d t es ti fi ed th athi s foots l i pped unde r the cutti ng d e c kwi thin “ a v e r y s ho r tp e r i o d o ft i me” o f tou ch ing th e grou nd , an d since th e A N S I stan d ard al l o ws fi ve s ec o nds f o r a n OPC to a r r es t t he bl ade , the defe nd ants re aso ned that M alen w oul d have be en i nj ur e d e v e n i fthe OP C h a d b e e n c o nn e c t e d. The M al ens cou nter ed that the unconnect ed OPC , not the c utti ng blad e, w as the r eas on the r eco nd i ti oned m ower w as unreas onabl y dange ro us. That dangerwasN o. 08

- 3855 11

concea l ed, the pla i nti ff s m ai ntai ned, tho ugh theyal so n ot ed t hat I l l i noi s doe s no t s hi el d against l i abi l i ty f or i nj uri es cause d by an “ open and obv i ous” hazar d unles s the nature ofthe ri sk outr anks eve ry o therf acto r “to be c onsi dered i n w ei ghi ng the inh er ent desi gn r i sks aga i ns t the uti l i ty ofthe product as m anufa cture d.” Blue v. Envt l
. Eng’g, Inc . , 8 2 8 N
. E
. 2d 1128, 1145 (I ll
. 2005). The pla i nti ff s insi ste d that the m ower was defec tive because i ts OPC di d n ot w or k a nd was not desi gned to be “failsafe, ” bu t the y no longer p res s e d t he ir th eory th at th e d efend an ts w ere li able for fai ling to w a rn Don ald M al enabo utthe mis sings afety de vi ce s. The pla i nt i ff s fur the r a r g ue d tha tf a c t ua l que s t i o ns r e mai ne d i n dis pu te concerni ng the cause o fM al en’ s inj ury. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d t he d e fe n d a nt s’ m o ti o n. M a len v. M TD P rod s., Inc., N o. 05 C 6478 , 20 08 W L 46102 95, at * 9 ( N
. D. I l l
. Oct. 10 , 20 08)
. The co urt accepte d the defen dan ts ’ pr emi se tha t th e cut tingb l ade , not the unc o nn e c t e d O P C , wa s th e s o ur ce o fd a n g e r i n th e l a wn m ow er . Id . at * 6. The co urt ackno w l edged, however, that the defendants co uld notesc ap e l i abi l i ty si m plybyas se r tingtha t al l r i di ngl awn mower s ar e i nhe r en tly da nger ous. Id . Yetthe cour t r eas oned thatsum m ar y j ud gm en t w as ap p rop riate on t h e grou nd that M alen’s conduct had been the s ol e ca use o fhi s a cci dent. A ccor ding to the d i str i ct c ourt, the und i sputed evi dence est abl i shed that M al en “( 1) dro ve the M ower o ffthe curb, ( 2) was aware of and understo od the w ar ni ng l abel s o n th e M o wer, a nd ( 3) i g no r ed th o se l ab el s bydi smoun ting th e M o werwi ththe c ut tingde ckr ai se d, the e ng i ne r unni ng, and the cutti ng bl ade enga ged. ” Id. at* 8. Thi s v i ew12 N o. 08

- 3855 ofthe evi dence, the cou rt n ote d, w as consi ste nt with D r. P a t e l ’s a c c ou n t o f th e a c c id en t. Id. at* 7. A nd since M al en was at f au lt, the cour t co nti nued , i t was unnecessa ry t o d ec id e w h et h er th e m ow er w as d efe c tiv e. Id. at * 6.

I I . DI S C US S I ON T he M ale n s argue on ap p eal that th e d istri ct cou rt er re d i n gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants on th e b as is th at D on al d M a len ’s a c tio n s w er e t h e s ole pr o xi m at e ca us e o fhi s ac ci den t an d i nj ur y . T he M al en s in sis t t h at th e re c on d itio n ed m ow er w as n eg lige n tly m a n u fac tu re d an d u n re as on ab ly d an ge ro u s b ec au se it did nothave a w or ki ng OPC
. T h e m ower was al so defe cti ve i n desi gn, the M al ens conte nd , bec ause the OPC used byM TD Pr o duct s was no t “f ai l s afe. ” F o r the i r pa r t, the defe nd an ts fi nal l y a cknowle dge the M al ens’ theo rythat th e m ower was defecti ve because o fthe desi gn an d m an uf ac tu r e o fi ts OPC, not be ca us e i t ha s a cut ting bl ade l i ke al l l aw n m owers. The defe nd an ts have now aba nd oned thei r conte nti on tha t the haz ar d w as o pena nd o bv i o us , b utthey s ti l l c o nt en d tha t th e pl ainti ff s’ ev i dence w oul d not e st ab l i sh thatthe m ower was defe cti ve orthati ts OPC was a “ substa nti al ” ca use o f M al en ’ s i nj ur y . A cco r di ngt o the de fen dan ts , the pl ainti ff s’ ev i dence does not excl ud e th e possibi l i ty that a th ird p ar ty ta m p er ed w ith th e m ow er , no r d oe s t h eir ev i den ce e st ab l i shtha t a pr o per l y fun ctio ni ngOPC w oul d have s topped the bl ade qui ckl y e nough to preve nt M al en’ s inj ury. The di str i ct c ourtwas c or re c t t o co nc l ud e , s a y the de fe nd a nt s , tha tMal e n’ s n e g l i gence caused hi s inj ury.N o. 08

- 3855 13 W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent de nov o. Rao v. BP P r ods
. N
. Am
. , Inc . , 58 9 F
. 3d 389, 39 5 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) . W e w ill affirm th e d ec isio n on ly i f, v i ewi ngthe f ac ts i n the l i gh t m ost f av o r ab l e to the M al e n s , an d d ra w in g a ll rea so n ab le in fer en c es in t h eir fav or , w e c on c lu d e t h at n o m at er ial iss u e o f fa c t is d ispu ted and that M T D Prod u c t s a nd H om e D ep ot are en tit led to j u d gm en t a s a m at te r of law
. SeeIndia Bre wer i e s, Inc . v . M i l l e rBr e win g Co. , 61 2 F
. 3d 651, 65 8 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ). In ap p lyin g t h is s ta n d ar d w e d ra w all re as on ab le in fer en c es an d res olv e fa c tu al d isp u t e s in fav or of th e n on m ov in g p ar ty ; he re , th e M ale n s. Knight v. Wi s e m an , 590 F.3d 458 , 462 (7th C ir. 2009). A fede ra l co urt si tting i n div er si ty appli es sta te substa nti ve law , M il w auk eeM et ro. Se w erage D is t. v. Am
. Int’l Spe ci al ty L i ne s Ins . Co. , 598 F.3d 311 , 316 (7th C ir. 2010); Harpe rv. Vigi l antIns . Co. , 433 F.3d 5 2 1, 525 (7th Cir. 2005 ) , and the parti es agr ee that I l l i noi s l aw go ver ns her e. To pr ev ai l o n a cl ai m o f st r i ct pr o duct s l i ab i l i ty, the p lai nt iffs w ou ld h ave to p rove th at M alen’s inj ury r es ul te d fr o m a c o ndi ti o n w hi chi s at tr ibut ab l e to the defen dan ts a nd made th e m o werunr ea so nabl y da nge ro u s. Se eKe l s o v. Baye rCo rp ., 39 8 F. 3d 640, 64 2 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( a p p l y i n gI l l i n o i s l a w) ; M ik o lajcz ykv. Fo rd M ot orC o. , 901 N .E .2d 32 9, 33 5 (Ill. 20 08 ); Ham m ond v. N
. Am
. As b e s t os Corp. , 454 N
. E
. 2d 210, 216-17 (I ll
. 1983). T o prev ailon th eir claim of ne gli gen ce, the p la intiff s w oul d have t o prove t h at the c onst ructi on o r desi gn o f th e m o werb r ea ch ed a duty o fcare a nd was the p ro x im at e c au se of M ale n ’s inj u ry . See Jo hn son v. Wa l-M a rt Sto re s , Inc . , 5 88 F
. 3d 43 9, 4 41 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( apply i ng14 N o. 08

- 3855 Illino is law ); Lew is v. C IT G O P e t r o l eum C o rp . , 56 1 F
. 3d 6 9 8 , 70 2 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 1 3 0 S
. C t
. 1 0 2 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( a pp lyin g Illino is law ); C a lles v. Scrip to -To k a i C o rp . , 86 4 N .E .2d 24 9, 26 3 (Ill. 20 07 ); Blue, 82 8 N
. E.2 d at 1 141- 42; Jabl ons kiv . F or d M ot orCo
. , 9 2 3 N. E. 2 d 3 4 7, 3 6 6 ( I l l
. App
. C t.), a pp eal allo w ed, 932 N
. E.2 d 1030 (20 10)
. Pro ofo fcausa tio n, th e lin c h p inof th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d e c isio n, i s ess enti alto bo th the or i es ofl i abi l i ty
. Se eSu zi k v. Se a- Lan d Corp
. , 8 9 F
. 3d 345, 34 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( applying I l l i nois l aw ) ; Kle e n v . Hom ak M f g. Co. , 74 9 N. E. 2 d 2 6 , 2 9 ( I l l
. App
. C t . 200 1); Wehm ei erv. UNR Indus. , Inc. , 57 2 N
. E.2 d 320, 335 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 91)
. W e co ncl ud e t h at the di str i ct cour t e rr ed w hen i t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent for M T D P ro d u c ts an d H om e D ep otbe c au se a re as on ab le j ury coul d find thatM al en’ s l aw n m ower was defec tive i n construct i on a nd desi gn, and w as the pr oxi m ate cause ofhi s inj ury.
A . A J uryCould F ind t hat t he Law n M ow erw as D ef ect i ve. The defe n d an ts ar gued on s um m ar y j ud gm ent that M al en’ s e vi dence w oul d not s ustain a j ury finding that hi s r ec o ndi ti o ne d Ya r d- M anw as unr ea so nabl y da ng e r o us , o r th a ti twa s n e g l i g e nt l y de s i g ne d a nd a s s e mbl e d. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t r ea chthi s co nt en ti o n, b utthe d efe n d an ts ar e free to re n ew it an d d o. Se eBiv e ns v. Tr e nt, 59 1 F .3 d 5 55 , 559 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ); Srail v. Vill
. of Lisl e, Ill ., 588 F.3d 940, 943 (7th Cir. 2009). A ju r y co u ld find th at a rid in g la w n m ow er is de fe c t i v e i fthe ma c hine l a c k s a n OPC to s t o p the b l a deN o. 08

- 3855 15 sh o ul d the o per at o r l o se c ont rolo r di se m ba r kwi ththe b lad e e n ga ge d
. H ub b ar d v
. M cDonough PowerEqu ip. , Inc ., 40 4 N .E .2d 31 1, 31 5-1 7 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 80 ); a cco rd N or t on v. Sna ppe r Pow e r Equip. , D i v. of Fuq ua Indus
. , 80 6 F
. 2d 15 45 , 155 0 (1 1t h C ir. 19 87 ) (ap p lyin g F lorid a la w ); Eyre v. M cDonough PowerEqu ip., Inc . , 75 5 F
. 2d 416, 42 0 ( 5th C ir. 19 85 ) (ap p lyin g L ou isia n a la w ); see33 A M . J UR . 2 D P rod uc ts Lia bility–D efectiv e D esign of R o ta ry M o w er§ 12 ( 1983 & S up p. 20 05)
. M TD Pro du cts and H om e Depot ha ve no t que st i o ne d the pl aint i ff s’ pr emi se tha t a r i di ng m ow er sold w itho u t a w orking O PC w ou ld fallshort ofi nd ustr y s tandards a nd b e defecti ve, norhave they disputed thatthe re condi ti oned m ower purc hased by Ma l e n d i d n o th a v e a fu n c t i o n i n gO P C ( o r NC R ) a tt he tim e o f h is a c c id en t. St ill, th e d e fen d an ts m ain ta in, a j ur y c o ul d no t fi nd tha t the mowe r wa s de fe c t i v e be

cause i t was d esigned w i th an OPC , the devi ce functi oned withi n the A N SIpara m ete r w hen connect ed a ft e r the a c c i de nt, a nd the p l a i nt i ff s d i d no te xc l ud e th e po ss ibi l i tythat a th i r d pa r tydi sc o nne ct ed th e OPC afterthe m ower was bui l t in 199 8. M anufa cture rs and sel l er s a re st ri ctl y l i able f ori nj uri es caused byunrea sonably d anger ous pr oducts unl ess an unf o r es ee n a l te r at i o n b y a thi r d p arty i nt r o duce d the u n sa f e co n d itio n . See P eterson v. Lo u B a ch rod t C hev rol et Co. , 3 29 N .E .2d 78 5, 78 6-8 7 (Ill. 19 75 ); Brda rv. Cot t r e l l, Inc ., 86 7 N .E .2d 10 85 , 109 9 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 07 ); M onreal v. Wat e r b ury- Far r e l F oun dry & M ac h. Co. , 64 6 N
. E.2 d 1337, 13 40 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 95 ); Wi e de m ann v. Indu s . Er e ct ors , Inc ., 483 N
. E.2 d 990, 99 7- 98 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 85 ). I n thi s ca se MT D P r o d u c t s a n d H o me De p o ts p e c u l a t e th a ta ts o me16 N o. 08

- 3855 poi nt afteras sem bl y a “nef ar i ous” perso n

— pe r ha ps eve n M al en

— ta m per ed wi ththe mowera nd di sc o nnecte d i ts OPC and N C R . A n d yet M al en te sti fi ed that hedi d no t di sc o nne cte i th ers afety d evi ce a fte r b uy i ng the m ower, and the defe nd ants produced no ev i de nce to the c ont ra ry . N ordi d they sugge st that an i nter l oper snuck into M al en’ s s tor age shed and di sco nnected these feature s. The pri nci pal i nfe re nce the defendants s e e kt o c r e a t e i s th a ta p r i o r o w n e r a l t e r e d th e l a wn m ower, but Donal d Pacheco, M al en’ s e xpert, te sti fi ed at hi s depo si ti o n tha t th ere w er e no s cr at ch es o n the c on ta c ts w h er e t h e w irin g for th e O P C an d N C Rsh ou ld have been connect ed at the f acto ry, a f act that l ed Pachec o to sur m i se that these sa fetydevi ces w er e nev er connect ed bef or e the ac ci dent. T h e d e fe n d a n t s d i d n o ts u b mi tmu c h o fth e i r o wn ev i den ce to di r ec tly c ha l l en g e Pa ch ec o ’ s co nc l us i o n. DanielM ar tens, the m anufa ctu rer’ s chi efengineer f or product safety, tes ti fi ed at hi s deposi ti on that p ost
producti on qual i ty ass urance f or t h is Yar d-M an m odel w as ou ts ou rc e d to A B S T ec h n ica l Ser vic es ; on ly a sm all nu m ber of units w ere ship p ed to com p an y hea d qu arters f or a n in ternal“a ud i t, ” a nd M ar tens had not l oca ted evi dence sugg est i n g that M al en’ s m ower was one o f them
. M ar tens in si ste d that a wri tte n prot oco l go ver ned i nspecti ons d on e by A BS, but he di d not pro du ce a pr o to co l a nd c o ul d no t i den ti fy the pu r po r te d do cum en t b y n am e o r ev en d es c rib e it s c on te n ts
. A B S d id ha ve a c he ck

-bo x f orm t o do cumenti ts i ns pec ti o ns , b ut M ar tens conceded thatthe f or m was not al w ays used and that M TD Pro du cts had not found a co m ple tedN o. 08

- 3855 17 f o r m f o r the mo we r p ur c ha s e d by M a l e n. Ath i s de po s ition M arten s au th en ticated a com p leted f orm corre sponding to a s i m i l arm ower that had “pass ed” inspecti o n b y ABS, b ut h e cou l d no t ex pl ain why the i nd i vi du al check box t o ver i fy t est i ng o fthe OPC was un m arked
. N or w as an exp lanation sup p li ed b y M ark H oll and, w ho was r esponsibl e forst andards co m pli ance at M TD Pro du cts. H ol l and specula ted thatA BS had p ro b ab ly b ee n u n c on c er n ed w ith th e “ lit t l e d et ail stuff ” a nd was f ocuse d on a “bot tom lin e” deter m i nati on of w hetherthe unithad passed o r f ai l ed. A nd ye t H ol l and w as cer tain, he s ai d, that A B S w oul d have tes ted the OPC
. The te sti m ony fro m thes e witnesse s do es no t forecl o se the l i k el i ho o d tha t th e m o werl eft th e f a c t o r y w i th o u ta fu n c t i o n i n gs a fe t y i n t e r l o c ks y s t e m. See U nited Sta tes v. Wa rner, 49 8 F
. 3d 66 6, 69 2- 93 ( 7th Cir. 20 07 ) ( ex cl ude d e vi den ce o fpr ev i o us s p orad i c r at e i ncre ase s was notty pe ofr egul arr esponse to sp ec i fi c, re peti ti ve si tuati on that would al l ow find er of f act to infer that increa se initi ated by d efend an ts w as rout ine); Thom ps on v. Boggs , 33 F. 3d 847, 85 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( und er Fe d er al R u le of E vid en c e 4 06 h ab it is e s t ab lish ed on ly th roug h ev i den ce o fpr ac ti ce s uffi ci en tly uni f o r m a nd re gul arthatfi nd ero ff act coul d concl ud e that pr acti ce w as u n d er ta ke n alm os t a lw ay s); Sim plex, Inc. v. D iversified E nergy Sys. , Inc. , 84 7 F
. 2d 1 29 0, 1293

- 94 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ( di s t r i c t c o ur t pr o pe r l y r e fus e d t o a dmi t e v i de nc e o fl ate del i ver i es a nd de fec ti ve pe r f o r m an ce o n un r el at ed co ntr acts as ev i dence that co m pany’s “habi t” w as to engag e i n such prac ti ces)
. N ei therw itness was qual i fi ed to sa y h ow A B S ro u tin ely co n d u c te d its te st in g, an d th eir18 N o. 08

- 3855 spe cul at i o n abo utthe r egul ar ity o r tho r o ug hne ss o fthe proce ss w oul d not pre cl ud e a j ury fro m i nfe rr in g that M al en ’ s mo we r wa s n e v e r s u bj e c t e d t o a c o mpr e h e nsi ve i nspecti on pro cedure that w as unif or m l y a pp l i ed to all p ro d u c tio n . See Truh la r v. U .S. P o stal Serv., 6 00 F. 3d 888, 89 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) (s pecula ti on about m oti ve f or unio n r epres entat i ve’ s co nd uct was i nsuffi ci ent t o re so lve iss u e at su m m ar y jud gm en t); M al awy v. Ri ch ar ds M f g. Co
. , 50 1 N
. E. 2d 37 6, 39 0- 91 ( I l l
. App. Ct
. 1 98 6) ( m an uf a c t u r e r o ff a i l e d me d i c a l d e v i c e c o u l d n o to v e r c o me sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n cla i m f ori nd em ni ty aga i nst ho sp i t a l b y r e l y i n gon e x p e r t ’ s s p e c u l a t i o n th a tu n k n o wn h os p ita l em p loy ee h ad m ish an d led d ev ice ); Ta rde l l a v. RJR N abis co, Inc. , 1 7 8 A. D. 2 d 7 3 7, 7 3 7

- 3 8 ( N. Y. A pp. Di v. 1 99 1) ( su m m ar y j udg m en t pr o perf o r c an dy m an uf actur erwh er e co m pany’s d et ai l ed evi dence ofqual i tyassu ra n ce pr oce du re s would pre cl ud e j ury fro m r easo n ablyfi nd i ng tha t pi n i n pla i nti ff’ s ca nd y b arwas p resen t w he n it l eft f acto ry). On this r ec or d, then, a j ury re aso nabl y c oul d find that M al en’ s m ower was sh i pp ed fro m the f acto ryi n 199 8 w ith its O P C st ill un c on n ec te d . Th at d efe c t w ou ld m ake th e m ow er u n r e a s ona bly da ng erou s ifthe th eory i s st r i ctpr o duct s l i ab i l i ty
. And the ve r y na tu r e o fthe defe ct

— a safetydevi ce that would have functi oned ex c ep t t h at it w as n ev er w ire d d u rin g a ss em b ly

— al so estab li sh es a breac h of the sta nd ard of care ift h e theory i s n eg lige n t m an u fac tu re . See Todd v. So ci e t eBic, S.A ., 21 F
. 3d 14 02 , 1 41 2 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 4) ( enb an c) ( apply i ng I l l i noi s l aw o fnegl i gent desi gn ); P h il lips v. U
. S. Waco C o rp . , 516 N
. E
. 2d 670, 674 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1987) (sam e).N o. 08

- 3855 19 Si gni fi cantl y, tho u gh , the defe nd ants have not ex p l aine d why i t m at te r s f o r s tr i ctl i ab i l i tywhethe r the OPC was c o nnecte d dur i nga ss embl y . As n o te d, the excl usi on o fl i abi l i ty f orunsafe cond i ti ons cre ate d by consum er s doe s no t ho l d fo r m odi fi cati ons that ar e for ese ea b le a n d ea sily ac c om p lish ed
. B r dar, 86 7 N
. E.2 d at 10 99 ; D avi s v. Pak-M o rM f g. Co. , 672 N .E .2d 77 1, 77 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 96 ); Wo o ds v . Gra ha m E ng ’g C o rp . , 53 9 N
. E.2 d 31 6, 31 8-1 9 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 89 ); Wi e de m ann , 48 3 N
. E.2 d at 99 7-9 8; D eArm ond v. Hoov erB all & B eari ng, U niloy D iv
. , 40 8 N
. E
. 2d 771, 774 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1980). D uring discov ery M T D P ro d u c ts d isc los ed th at co n su m er s e as ily c ou ld ove rr i de the O P C o n the Yard-M an m odelo w ned by M a l en ; ap p ar en tly it w as en ou gh to ya n k a sin gle l ead fr om i ts ter m i nal
. W hat’ s m or e, the defe nd ants adm i tte d that M al en’ s la w n m ower was desig ned to per m i t con ti nue d o per at i o n i fthe OPC wa s unc o nnecte d. A ccor ding to Gu nterPl am per, the vi ce pr esi dent of s a f e t y , MT D P r o d u c t s h a d e x p e c t e d t h a t s o me own er s would di sl i ke the OPC and tr y t o ove rrid e it; th e co m pan y ha d fea r ed th atg r ea te r da m ag e an d fu rther safetyi ssues m i ght a ri se i fthe proce ss ofdefea tin g t h e O P C w as m ad e c om p l i c at ed . Pe rh ap s t h is te st i m o ny was i nt en ded to b o l st erthe i nfer en ce th at th e OPC was di sc o nne ct ed afte r the l awn mowerl eft th e f acto ryi n 199 8. T h e d efe n d an ts als o ign o r e a n ot h er w rin kle . W h at if M TD Pro du cts had not a nti ci pated tam peri ng o r had m ade the tas k o fdi sco nnecting the OPC d i ffi cul t? W i th str i ct l i abi l i ty, unfo re see n d efects intro du ced by pri or o w n e r s can not be attribu ted to m an ufac tu rers or sel lers20 N o. 08

- 3855

w h en u se d goo d s a re m ar ke te d as -is. See Cour tv. G rzelin ksi, 37 9 N .E .2d 28 1, 28 2 (Ill. 19 78 ); P eterson , 329 N .E .2d at78 6-8 7; Tim m v. Indi an Spr i ngs Re cre at i on Ass ’ n, 543 N
. E.2 d 538, 54 1- 42 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 89 ); A b e l v. Ge n. M o to r s C o rp., 507 N
. E.2 d 1369, 13 76 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 1987 )
. But H om e Depot did notse l l the m ow er to M al en “as- i s. ” He b ou gh t a “r eco nd i ti oned” uni t ba cked bya “ful l manuf ac tu r er ’ s w ar r an ty ”; tha t m uchi s be y o nd d ispu te bec au se th e ad vertisem en t is in evide nc e. W ha t’s m i ssing ar e deta i l s about the r eco nd i ti oni ng. W e ca nnot tel l fr o m t he r e c o r d wh e the r the de fe nd a nt s e v er co m pl i ed wi tha di sc o ve r y de m an d to i den ti fy who r ec o nd i t i o n e d th e mo we r ; a t su m m ar y j udg m en t M TD Pr o duct s si m p lyde ni ed per f o r m i ngthe wor ka nd i m pli ed that i t r el i es on “ author i zed d eal er s, ” which H om e Depot w as not. A nd ye t the d efe n d ants have not suggest ed t hat Hom e Depot’ s a d w as f al se orm i sl eadi ng, o r th at M al en was to l d by the sa l es ass oci ate that “r eco nd i ti oned” r eal l y m eant som ethi ng l ess . W e ha ve no t f o und a c o nt r o l l i ngI l l i no i s dec i si o n, b ut th e d efe n d an ts d o n otco n te n d th at Il lin ois c ou rt s w ou ld d ist in gu ish “re c on d itio n ed ” p ro d u c ts f r om th os e n ew ly m anufa cture d. Recondit i oni ng o r re m anufa ctu ring a pr o ducti s di ffer en t fr o m s er vi cingo r r epa i r i ngthe i t e m. R e c o nd i t i o ninge xt e nd s the u s e full i fe b e y o nd wh at w as conte m pla ted atthe poi nt o fm anufa cture and effecti vel y c re ate s a new p ro du ct. This co urt and other s hav e re cogni zed the dist i ncti on i n ass ess i ng w hen a produ c t is “fi rs t” sol d forpurposes o fa sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons or re p os e. Se eRi ch ar ds on v. G a ll o Equ ip. Co. , 99 0 F
. 2d 330, 3 3 1 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( a p p l y i n g I n d i a n a l a w) ; Ar nol d v
.N o. 08

- 3855 21 Ridd e l l, Inc . , 88 2 F
. S upp . 9 79 , 9 87 ( D. K an. 19 95) (ap p lyin g K an sa s la w ); D i vi s v. C la rkli f tof Ne b
. , Inc . , 59 0 N
. W
. 2d 696, 70 0- 01 ( N eb. 19 99)
. The di stincti on was al so no te d i n Tidem ann v. NadlerGo lf Ca r S a le s, Inc. , 22 4 F
. 3d 7 1 9 , 7 2 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) , a d i v e r s i t y a c t i o n th ati nc lu d ed a c l a i m of st ric t p ro d u c ts liab ility u n d er Il lin ois law . In th at ca se th e p lain tiffh ad arg u ed th at rec on d iti o ne d pr o duct s, u nl i k e us ed g o o ds m ar k et ed wi th o ut al ter ati on, sho uld be char acte ri zed as new rathe r than used, i n part i c u l arwh en adver ti sed as “l i ke new . ” Id
. We pass e d o n whe the r the I l l i no i s c o ur t s wo ul d e nd or se th is p os itio n, id
. a t 72 6, but we re cogni zed i ts accepta nce i n the R es tate m ent(Third) of Torts , wh i ch und er sco re s that consum er s ex p ect re m anufa cture d orr eco nd i ti oned products t o prese nt no gr eat err i sk ofdefect th an if ne w , R ES TATE MENT (T HIRD ) OF T OR TS : P RODUC TS L IABILITY § 8(c ), cm t. I (199 8); s e eal s o 6 3 A A M . J UR . 2 D Prod uc t s Li ab i l i ty § 1 30 2; A M . L A W O F P RO D UC TS L IABILITY 3d § 3 7: 8 ( 2010 )
. The Rest ate m ent a dopts the posi ti on that str i ctpr o duct s l i ab i l i tyi s appr o pr i at e f o r r emanufac tu re d p ro d u c ts , R ES TATE MENT (T HIRD ) OF T O RTS : P R OD UC TS L IABILITY § 8( c) ( 1998 ) , and the I l l i nois c ou rt s typi cal l y e nd or se the Res tat em ent pos i ti on in th e absence of c on tr ollin g a u th or ity , e . g . , Ec k b u rg v . Pre s b y t e ry of Bl ackh awko

f Pr es byte r i an Ch u r c h ( USA) , 91 8 N
. E.2 d 1184, 11 90 (Ill . A p p . C t. 20 09 ); Ven a v. Ve na , 89 9 N
. E.2 d 522, 52 6 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 08 ); Randal l v. Le m ke, 72 6 N
. E.2 d 183, 18 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 00 ); Prat tv. K i l b or n M ot ors , Inc . , 36 3 N
. E.2 d 452, 4 54 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 77)
. Court s in other sta tes alr ea d y h av e re c og n i ze d th at reb u ild in g or rec on d iti o ni nga us ed pr o du ct i s ak i n t o fi r stmanuf ac tu r e an d22 N o. 08

- 3855 thus the co m m er ci alsa l e o f a reco nd i ti oned pro du ct c an giv e ris e t o a cla im of st r i c t liab ility
. P eterson v. Su per. Ct ., 89 9 P .2d 90 5, 91 4 (C a l . 1 99 5); Arr i aga v. Ci t i Capi t al C o m m ercia l C o rp . , 8 5 Ca l
. R pt r . 3 d 1 4 3 , 153 ( Ca l
. Ct
. App
. 2008 ) ; Ga u merv . Ros s vi l l e Tr u c k & Tr ac t orCo
. , Inc. , 20 2 P. 3d 81 , 86-8 7 (K an . C t . A p p . 200 9); M ich a lk o v. C o o k e C o lo r & C hem . Co rp ., 45 1 A .2d 17 9, 18 3 (N .J. 19 82 ); A nd erson v. O l m s t e ad Uti l
. Equ ip. , Inc ., 57 3 N .E .2d 62 6, 62 9

- 3 0 (O h io 19 91 ); Cran de l l v. La rki n & Jo nes A ppl i anc eCo. , 33 4 N
. W
. 2d 31, 34 (S. D
. 1983). The pla i nti ff s hav e pr oduced enough evi dence to es tablish , byany ofse ver alm eans, thatM al en’ s m ower w as unreas onabl y dange ro us. A nd t he ev i dence that the OPC w as n ev er co nnected atthe f acto ryal so provi des the f oundati on f orthe pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m ag ai nst M T D P ro d u c ts for n eg lige n t m a n u fac tu re . W h at ’s le ft is the pl ai nti ff s’ co ntenti on that th e m ower was further de fe c t i v e i n de s i g n b e c a us e i t s OPC was no t“ f a i l s a fe . ” On th is que stion, too, there is suffic ien t evide nc e for a j ury to fi nd f orthe pla i nti ff s. To e st ab l i shl i ab i l i tyo n a the ory o fne g l i g en t des i g n, a plai nt i ffmusts ho w duty, b r ea ch, pr o xi m at e ca us e, a nd d am ag es . See, e.g., C a lles , 864 N .E .2d at26 3; Jab l ons ki, 9 2 3 N. E. 2 d a t3 6 6
. Al tho ugh s t r i c tl i ab i l i t y i s c oncer ned onl y with the condi ti on o fthe product, negl i gence involves a d efend an t’s f a u lt in ad d iti on to th e prod uc t’s co ndi ti o n. C a lles , 864 N .E .2d at26 3-6 4; Jab l ons ki, 92 3 N .E .2d at36 6; He nry v . Panas oni c Fac t ory Aut om at i on Co. , 917 N
. E.2 d 1086, 1 091 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 09)
. S o i n additi on to show ing tha t the prod uc t w as d e fe c t ive, the p lai nt iffN o. 08

- 3855 23

m ust s how thatthe m anu fac ture r knew (o r shoul d have kn ow n ) th atth e p ro d u c t w as u n sa fe. C a lles , 864 N .E
. 2d at 26 4; Jab l ons ki, 923 N .E .2d at36 7; So b c z a kv. G en. M o to rs Corp
. , 871 N
. E
. 2d 82, 94 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 2007). M TD P r o du c t s i ns i s ts that the de s i g n o fthe Y a r dM an co uld nothave bee n negl i gent because the de sign incorp orated an O PC
. Bu t tha t con ten tion m isun d erst an ds M al en ’ s cl ai m . He do es no t co ntend tha t th e desi gn was fl aw ed beca use no pro vi si on was m ade f or an OPC ; he c l ai m s instea d that M TD Pro du cts sh ou ld h av e m ad e t h e O P C “fa i l sa fe,” m ea n in g t h at if (an d in M ale n ’s c as e, w h en ) th e O P C failed , th e m o w er sh ou ld have been i noperabl e. A desi gn defect is est abl i shed by evi dence ofa pract i cal, co st- effecti ve al ternati ve that w as technol ogi cal l y feas ibl e an d w oul d have pre vente d M ale n ’s inj u ry . S e e Ha nsen v. B a xter H eal thc a re C o rp., 764 N .E .2d 3 5 , 4 5 (Ill. 20 02 ); Ker ns v. Enge l ke, 39 0 N
. E.2 d 85 9, 86 3 (Ill. 19 79 ); St al l i ngs v. B l ac k & D e cke r( U
. S. ) , Inc . , 79 6 N
. E.2 d 143, 14 9 ( I l l
. A p p. Ct. 20 03)
. M al en’ s e xpert, Pacheco, i dent ifi ed the ser vi ce k i t i ssued i n J une 199 9 a s a s afe r, rea d ily av aila b le alte rn at ive . U n d er th is “ n or m ally o pen ” d es i g n, i fthe s afety i nt er l o cks y st em f ai l ed, the m ower becam e i noperabl e. This re vi si on, P acheco not ed , w as fi rst con tem p lated i n O ctob er 1997, before M alen’ s m ower was co nstr ucted, and the ser vi ce k i t t o re tr ofi t e xi sting unit s w as re l eas ed bef or e M al en’ s m ower w as re condi ti oned. That the r evi si on wa s M T D Pro du cts’ ve ry ow n desi gn, was conce i ved befor e M al en’ s m ower w as bu ilt, an d w as inc or p or at ed in t o l at er m od els i s ev i den ce fr o m whi cha j ur y c o ul d fi nd tha t th e o r i g i na l, “ no r mal l y c l o s e d” de s i g n wa s de fe c t i ve.24 N o. 08

- 3855 Se eJab l ons ki, 92 3 N
. E.2 d at 370

- 71 ( concl ud i ng tha t w h et h er m an u fac tu re r br ea c h ed st an d ar d of ca re in d esign of gas ta nk w as j ury q ue stion w he re plaintiff’s expertst ate d that m anufa cture r’ s u p grade ki t e vi denced s a f e a n d fea sib le a lte rn at ive ); Sob cz ak, 8 7 1 N. E. 2 d a t9 4

- 95 (c on c lu d in g t h at j u ry sh ou l d d ec id e if d es ign of fu elm an ag ements y s t e m wa s d e fe c t i v e wher e m an uf ac tu r er ’ s en g i ne er s ha d a ckno wl edg ed thatc o m pan y kn ew of safer alternative). M TD Pro du c ts c ou nter ed that i ts re desi gn was not “f oo l proo f ” a nd thu s c oul d not r ai se an i nfe re nce that th e o r i g i na l des i g n was defec ti ve . Again th e co m pan y m i sse s the poi nt. Though Pacheco acknow l edged that a c on su m er co u ld co n c eiv ab ly b yp as s t h e n ew , “n or m ally op en ” d es ign , he als o t e s tifie d th at th e d es ign w as “fa il sa fe” : I fthe r ede si g ne d OPC was l eft unc o nne ct ed atthe factory or becam e d isc o n ne cted w ithou t the cons um er’s k no wl edg e, the mowerwoul d no t r un wi ththe c ut ting bl ade enga ged. A deter m i ned consu m er m i ght ha ve be enabl e to r ewi r e th e m o wert o b y pass the OPC

— i.e., the red esi gn was not f oo l proo f

—but i t was undisputed th atM al en ’ s i nj ur y c o ul d no t ha ve o cc ur r ed h ad he been u s ing a Ya rd -M an w ith th e red esigned safety i nt erloc k s ys te m . Se eBe rr i e rv. Si m pl i ci ty M f g. , Inc . , 56 3 F
. 3d 38 , 63-6 4 (3 d C ir. 20 09 ) (ap p lyin g P en n sy lva n i a l a w in c on c lu d in g t h at n ew ly d es ign ed N C R, eve n th ou gh it coul d be by passed, co uld have l ess ened orel i m i nated pla i nti ff’ s inj ury and thus evi denced that o ri gi nalde si gn w a s d efe c tiv e); E yre, 7 5 5 F
. 2 d a t4 1 9

- 2 0 ( a p p l y i ng Louis ian a l aw i n concl ud i ng tha t di str i ct c ourter re d i n set ti ng a sid e v er dictf orpl ai nti ffwh o prove d thatN o. 08

- 3855 25 feas ibl e r edesi gn o fOPC w ou l d have pre vente d i nj uri es su staine d w he n p lai nt iff fel l from ri d ing m ow er). B a s e d o n wh atw e h a v e e x p l a i n e d ab o v e , we co nc lude th ata r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fi nd tha t th e l aw n m ower was defecti ve.
B . A J uryC ould Co nc l ude t ha tt he Mowe rWas t he Prox i m at e Cause o ft he I njury. T he district cou rt conc lud ed , how ever, that M alen’s ev id en c e e st ab l ish es th at h e w as inju re d be c au se of h is own negl i gence and not because o fthe d efe cti ve m ow er ; th e d efe n d an ts p r e s s th is c on te n tio n on ap p ea l. Pr o xi m at e ca us e en co m pas se s two r equi r ement s: c au se - i nfac t a n d lega l ca u se . Yo u n gv . B ry c o A r ms , 82 1 N
. E.2 d 10 78 , 10 85 -86 (Ill. 20 04 ); Le ev. Chi
. Tr ans i tAut h. , 60 5 N
. E.2 d 493, 50 2 ( I l l
. 19 92)
. If m u lti ple f acto rs have co m bi ned to c au se an i nj ur y, I l l i no i s l aw a sk s whethe r the de fen dan t’ s co nduc t was a “ su bs ta nt i alf ac to r ” i n b r i ng i ng ab ou t the i nj ury. Yo un g, 82 1 N .E .2d at10 86 ; Coo l ev . Ce nt. Are a Re cy cl i ng, 893 N
. E .2 d 3 03, 310 ( I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 2008). Dr awin ga l l i nfer en ce s i n f av o r o fthe pl aint i ff s, a nd v i e win gth e f a c t s i n th e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r ab l e t o th e m, we c o nc l ude tha t a tr i ero ff ac t r ea so nabl y c o uld fi nd th at th e d efe c tiv e c o n d itio n of th e m ow er w as th e p ro x im ate cause o fM al en’ s inj ury. The defe nd ants ar gue that no m att erthe theo ryo f l i abi l i ty ( str i ct l i abi l i ty ornegl i gence ) o r the m ower M al enwoul d ha ve b een u sing ( hi s o wn Yar d- M ano r o ne l i k e i t wi ththe “ f ai l s afe” s afety i nt er l o cks y st em) , the26 N o. 08

- 3855 ti m i ngo fthe e ve nt s l ead i ngt o hi s i nj ur y make s th e exi ste nce of the OPC or safety i nter l ock sys tem ir re l eva n t. A c c or d in g to t h e defe nd ants, M al en was inj ure d too qu ickly for th e O PC to have m ad e any differ en ce . I fthi s co nt en ti o n h ad be ene st ab l i sh ed co nc l usi vel y b y the e vi dence i n the re cor d, sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defen d an ts w oul d have be en appropr i ate
. Se eKi r b y v . La ngs t on’s Fur ni t ure & Appl i anc e, Inc . , 63 1 S o. 2d 1301 , 13 04 ( La. Ct. A pp . 19 94) ( affir m ing j ud gm ent for law n m ow er m an u fac tu re r on p ro d u c ts -liab ility cla im where pl aint i ffdi d no t pr o duce e vi den ce tha t th e p resen ce of OP C w ou ld h ave p reven ted i njury); G a uth ier v . M cD o no ug h P o w er E quip ., Inc ., 608 So
. 2d 10 86, 10 90- 91 (La
. Ct
. A p p . 1 992) (sam e); We nze l l v. M TD Pr ods
. , Inc . , 33 6 N
. E.2 d 125, 13 2- 33 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 75) ( affi rm i ng ve rdi ct f orm an u facturero fl aw n m ower where pla i nti fff ai l ed to i ntro du ce evi dence that m ower’ s al l ege dlyd efecti ve chai n and sproc ketcause d i nj ury)
. But the defe nd ants sta rtthei r cl ockfrom t h e pointwh en M al en r ose fro m the s ea t, and that i s t oo l ate
. The Yar d-M an was equi pped wi th a n N CR, a nd ha d i t be enc o nne ct ed th e m o t o r wo ul d h a v e di e d b e f o r e Mal e n s t o o d u p. M al en al r ea dy ha d s hi fte d i nt o r ev er se whi l e tryi ngt o r o ckthe m ower fre e, so the N CR sho uld have shut pow erto th e eng ine bec au se th e blad e w as stillenga ged
. M ore i m port antl y, tho ugh, the ti m e fra m e i s su b j ect to dispute. M al en te sti fi ed that the whol e o rdeal

— fr om w hen h e tr i ed to r ockthe m ower fre e t o w hen he cut h i s foo t

— l ast ed bet we e n 1 0 a nd 2 0 s e c o nd s , we l l b e y o nd e v e n the 5- se co nd AN S I st an dar d. And whe n th e OPC was con n ec te d aft er th e a c c id en t, th e b lad e fu lly st o p p e d in 2.6N o. 08

- 3855 27

secon d s, only a fraction of a secon d l ong er than M alen’s guess abo ut the shor tes t pos sibl e inter valbetw ee n wh en he s t a r t e d t o r i s e fr o m t he sea ta nd wh e n the b l a de fi r sts truckhi s f o o t. M al enwas w eari nga b o o t an d the defe nd ants subm i tte d no ev i dence sugg est i ng th at a bl ade abo ut to co m e t o a fullstop w ou l d have inj ured M al en ’ s f o o t to th e sa m e ex te nt as a bl ade turn ing unabat ed at fu l l pow er . The ev i dence m ust be vi ew ed fr o m the pe r spe ct i ve mos t f av o r ab l e to the p lai nt i ff s, b ut eve n the scenar i o f avo ring the defendant s w oul d have gi ven the bl ade ti m e to sto p bef or e M al en tr i ed to ex tract h is foot from the cu tting d ec k
. In fact, how ever, th e cut tingb l ade c o nt i nue d t o s pi n. T h e defendants’ pri nci pal ar gum ent though

— a n d t he b asi s o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on

— i s th a t Ma l e n ’ s o wn conduct and n ot the defecti ve m ower was the l ega l cause ofhi s inj ury. L eg al cause i s e stabl i shed i fthe defend an t’s cond uc t i s s o closel y tied to th e plaintiff’s i nj u r y th a tth e d e fe n d a n ts h o u l d b e h e l d l e g a l l yr e s p o ns ib l e. S im m o ns v . Ga rces , 763 N
. E
. 2d 720, 732 (I ll
. 2002); M cCraw v. Cegi e l s ki, 680 N .E .2d 39 4, 39 6 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 1996 )
. Legalcause i nvol ves an a ssessm ent o ff or ese eab ility , i n w h ich Il lin ois co u rt s a sk w h et h er th e inj u ry is ofa type that a r eas ona b le per son w oul d fo re see as a like ly re su lt of h is c on d u c t. Young, 821 N .E .2d at10 86 ; Lee, 605 N
. E.2 d at 5 03. The di str i ct c ourtr eas oned that th e d efe n d an ts “c ou ld n oth av e fo r e s ee n th at an y in d ivi du alwould d rive a r i ding m ower o ffa curb and dismou nttha tmo we r wi th the c ut t i ngb l a de s s t i l l e ng a g e d, all th e w h ile ign or in g c lea rly p lac ed w ar n in g la b els cauti oni ng the o perat orto tur n offt h e e ngi ne and bl ades bef or e di sm ounti ng. ” M a len , 20 08 W L 46102 95, at* 8.28 N o. 08

- 3855 I fM al en ’ s co nduc t i s r el ev ant a t a ll, the f ac t th athe d ro ve th e m ow er off th e c u rb is n ot . A n d n eit h er is it re l eva nttha th e t r i e d t o di s l o dg e the ma c hine by sh i ftingb etwee n fo r war d a nd r ev er se w hi l e r o ck i ngthe m ower. The d efe nd ants did notsubm i t a ny ev i dence that the m ower’ s pos i ti on o n the curb c aused M al en to sl i p orthatthe cutti ng deck w as ti l ted i n a way that ex po se d the b l ade
. Tha t th e m o werwas wedg ed o n the curb w as M al en’ s m o tiv e f ordi sm ou n tin g but, as f aras thi s r eco rd show s, thati s a l l
. A nd wh en M al en di sm ounted, he a l re ady h ad cea sed r ock i ng the m achi ne, so hi s uns ucc es sfulus e o fthi s m an eu ve r had no b ea r i ng on hi s inj ury. The defendants have neve r conte nd ed that w h ile ro c kin g t h e m ow er h e los t h is b a l a n c e a n d fell beneath the bl ade. M ale n ’s d isr eg ar d o fa w ar n in g la b el d ire c tin g h im to shut o ffthe engi ne be f or e di sm ou n ting at l eas t has su per fi ci ala ppea l, b utthi s do es no t r es o l ve the i ss ue he r e. T he p l aint i ff s co nc ede tha t M al enha d r ea d a nd com p rehe nd ed the p rinted w arn in g l abel on th e m ow er, and if t he pl ai nti ff s were sti l l pursui ng a cl ai m f or f ai l ur e to war n ab o utthe unc o nne ct ed OPC a nd NCR, the d efe n d an ts m igh t b e a b le t o re ly on th e la b el in d efe n d in g t h at cla im
. Se eWe r cke nthe i n v . Buc he rPe t r och e m i ca l Co. , 6 1 8 N .E
. 2d 902, 908-09 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 1993); Taylo rv. Ge r ry’s Ridgew ood, Inc . , 49 0 N
. E.2 d 987, 99 1- 92 ( I l l
. App. Ct
. 1 98 6)
. Buta t sum m ary j udg m en t th e pl ainti ff s ab an do ne d th ei r c l ai m o fa f ai l ur e to war n, a nd th e w arn i ngl ab elo n the mowerha s no b ea r i ngo n the pla i nti ff s’ r em ai ni ng cl aim s. I fthe m ower was defecti ve because o fan unconnect ed orpoor l y desi gned safetyN o. 08

- 3855 29 i nter l ocksy ste m , warni ngs c oul d no t er ase the defe ct o r m a k e t h e m ac h in e s afe
. See C ha pm a n v . M a yta g C o rp . , 29 7 F.3d 682 , 689 (7th C ir. 2002 ) (app lyi ng Ind iana law ); G lo ver v . B ICC o rp . , 6 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 3 ( 9 th Cir
. 19 9 3 ) ( a pp lyin g O re go n law ); Ne e dham v. W hi t eLa b s . , Inc . , 63 9 F.2d 394 , 400 (7th C ir. 1981) (app lyi ng I ll inois l aw ). In an y eve n t, w h en w ar n in gs ar e rele va n t, a ju r y o rd inari l y m ust deci de w hetherth e f ai l ure to f ol l ow them re n d er ed a p lain tiff’s co n d u c t u n for es ee ab le. See Wh eeler v. Su nbelt To o l C o ., 537 N
. E.2 d 1332, 13 43 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 1989 ); Thib a u l t v . S e a rs, R o ebuc k& C o ., 395 A
. 2d 843, 84 7 ( N
. H
. 19 78)
. A nd o n thi s r eco rd noth in g favors a deci si on f or the defe nd ants. Pacheco, M al en ’s exp er t, tes ti fi ed at hi s deposi ti on that the Y ar d-M an’ s desi gn al l owed an o perat orto l eave the m ower r u n n in g, d i s mo u n t t e mp o r a r i l y t o mo v e d e b r i s , a n d th e n r e s u me m owing. Rem oving debr i s fro m the m ower’ s path i s a r o ut i ne p r e c a ut i o n tha ta nyc a r e fulo pe r a t o r wo ul d b e ex p ec te d to ta ke , see Ca m pb ell v. Ko vic h, 731 N
. W
. 2d 112, 11 5-1 6 (M ich . C t. A p p . 200 6); Gorev. O hi o D ep’t of Tran sp . , 7 74 N. E. 2d 817, 8 20 ( Ohi o Ct
. Cl
. 2 00 2) , a nd Pa ch ec o o pi ne d tha t do i ngs o wi th o uts hut ting o ffthe engi ne i s a n ac ceptabl e pr acti ce s o l ong as the m ower is not l eft unatt ended. That A N SIst andards m andate equi ppi ngr i ding la wn m o wer s wi tha n OPC

— a devi ce i nte nde d t o pr o te cto per at o r s who di smoun t wi ththe e n g i n e r u n n i ng

— c on firm s t h at d ism ou n tin g t em p or ar ily whi l e l ea vingthe e ng i ne r unn ing i s co m m o n a nd o r d i n ar y u se of a rid in g m ow er . SeeKirby, 6 3 1 So
. 2d at 1303
.30 N o. 08

- 3855 Even i fthe defe nd ants ar e co rr ect that M al en was him self ne gli gen t and that i t m attered , accid e nt s are na t ur a l, f o r ese e ab l e c o ns e qu e nc e s o fu s i ngc e r t a i n pr o du c ts
. SeeR ES TATE MENT (T HIRD ) OF T ORTS : P R O D UC TS L IA BILITY § 16 c m t. a (19 98 ); B ueh ler v. W ha len , 374 N
. E.2 d 460, 46 4- 65 ( I l l
. 19 77 ); B ean v. V o lksw agen w erk Akti e nges e l l s ch af

tof Wol f s b urg, Ge r m any, 44 0 N
. E.2 d 426, 42 9 ( I l l
. App
. C t
. 1 9 8 2 )
. T h i s p r i n c i p l e i s kn o wna s t he crash w or thi ness doctr i ne ( orthe “enhanced i nj ury” o r
“ s e c o nd c o l l i s i on” do c t r i ne ) , wh i c h I l l i no i s h a s a do pt e d. B ueh ler, 374 N .E .2d at46 4-6 5; s e e D eP a epe v . Gen . M o to rs C o rp ., 33 F.3d 73 7, 73 9 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (a p p lyin g Illino is law ); Nanda v. Fo r d M ot orCo. , 5 09 F. 2d 213, 21 7- 18 ( 7th C ir. 19 74 ) (ap p lyin g Illino is law ); M ac k v. Fo rd M o t orCo. , 66 9 N .E .2d 6 08 , 6 12 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 96 ); O a k es v. G en. M o to rs C o rp ., 62 8 N .E .2d 34 1, 34 5 (I ll. A p p . C t . 1 99 4); Se wardv. Gr i f fi n , 4 52 N .E .2d 55 8, 56 8 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 83 ); Bean , 44 0 N
. E.2 d at 4 29 ; Sta hl v. Fo r d M ot orCo. , 38 1 N
. E.2 d 1211, 1214

- 15 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 78)
. The doctr i ne appli es to both str i ct l i abi l i ty and negl i gence , and to ev er y per son i nvol ved i n the o ve r al l en terpr i se o fa pr o duct, i nc l udi ngdi st r ibuto rs an d ret aile rs . Se eAbc o M e t al s Corp. v. Equ i co Le ssors, Inc . , 721 F.2d 583 , 5 84 (7th C ir. 1983) (app lyi ng I ll inois l aw ); Nanda , 509 F.2d at21 9; B ueh ler, 374 N .E .2d at46 5; D unh am v. Vaugh an & Bus hne l l M f g. Co. , 247N .E .2d 40 1, 40 4 (Ill. 1969 )
. The pre m i se und er l yi ng the cr ashw orthiness doctr in e is th at so m e p ro d u c ts , alth ou gh n otm ad e fo r c er ta in pu rpos es

— such as acci dents

— shoul d never thel ess be re asonab l y desi gned to m i ni m i ze the inj ury- produci ng effect ofan a cci dent. Bean , 440 N .E .2d at42 9; s e e Ta fo ya v. Sea rs R o e b u c k& C o., 8 84 F .2d 13 30 , 133 7 (1 0t h C ir. 19 89 ), o verru ledN o. 08

- 3855 31

o n o thergrounds, M il e H i Concret e, Inc. v. M atz , 8 4 2 P. 2d 19 8 , 2 0 6 n . 1 7 ( C o l o . 1 9 9 2 )
. A d e fe c t i s n o t me r el y t he concl usi on that th e product f ai l ed and caused i nj ury, but tha t th e product f ai l ed to pro vi de the consum er w i thr ea so nabl e pr o te ct i o n un derthe c i r cumst an ce s su rro u n d in g a parti cul ar ac c id en t. Whit ted v . Gen . M o to rs C o rp., 58 F
. 3d 12 00 , 1 20 5- 06 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) (ap p l y i ngIndi an a l aw)
. The c r as hwor th i ne ss do ct r i ne i s co ns i st en t wi ththe id ea th a t alt h ou gh a d efe n d an t’s co n d u c t is n ota p ro x im at e ca us e i fs o m e i nt er ven ing ac t su per se des the de fen dant’s ne g l i g en ce , a r ea so nabl y f o r es ee ab l e i nt er ve ni ng act, su ch a s ana cc i den t, do es no t r el i ev e th e defen dan t ofl i abi l i ty. SeeBe n t l ey v. S au n e min Twp
. , 41 3 N
. E.2 d 12 42 , 124 5 (Ill. 19 80 ); M ack, 66 9 N
. E.2 d at 6 13. I fthe c r as hwor th i ne ss do ct r i ne a ppl i es t o r i di ng m ow er s, th e d efe n d an ts w er e re q u ire d to fo r e se e c er ta in acci d en ts i n the use o fthe m ower

— m uch l i ke an auto m anufa ctu re r m ust for ese e that i ts car s wil l so m eti m es be i nvol ved i n ac c i dents

— an d to provid e con su m ers w i th r eas onabl e pr ote cti ons und erth e ci rcum sta nces surr ounding parti c u l aracc i dents. I l l i noi s has appli ed th e d oc tr in e t o a u to m ob iles , B ueh ler, 374 N
. E.2 d at 4 64; M ack, 669 N .E .2d at61 2; O akes , 6 28 N
. E.2 d at 3 45; B e an , 4 4 0 N. E. 2 d a t 4 2 8

- 2 9 , b ut i t s hi g he s t c o ur t ha s no t spe c i fi c a l l y a ddr e s s e d wh e the r the c r a s hwo r thine s s do ctr i ne appli es to ri ding m owers. The R estatem ent (Third ) of To rts r ec o g ni ze s th atthe cra shw or thi ness doctr i ne appli es outsi de the autom obile c on te x t. See R ES TATE MENT (T HIRD ) OF T ORTS : P RODUC TS L IABILITY § 16 cm t. a ( 1998 )
. Other j uri sdic ti ons have32 N o. 08

- 3855

ex te n d ed th e d oc tr in e t o m ot or c yc les , M i l l e rv. Todd, 55 1 N .E .2 d 11 39 , 114 2 (In d . 199 0); M cDow e l l v. Kawasa ki M ot ors Corp. U SA , 79 9 S
. W
. 2 d 8 5 4 , 8 6 5
- 6 6 ( M o . Ct
. App
. 19 90 ); airp lan es , M cGe ev. C e s s na Air craf tCo. , 188 C al. Rp tr. 54 2, 55 1 (C al. C t. A p p . 198 3); D unc an v. Ce s s na Air craf tCo. , 632 S. W
. 2d 375, 38 2- 83 ( Tex. A pp . 19 82) ( applying N ew M ex ico law ), ove r r ul e d on othe rgroun ds , 66 5 S .W .2d 41 4 (T ex . 198 4); b oa t e n gin es , P ree v. B run sw ickC o rp . , 98 3 F
. 2d 8 6 3 , 8 6 6 (8 th C ir. 19 93 ) (ap p lyin g M iss ou ri law ); Ru b i n v. B rutu s C o rp . , 4 8 7S o . 2 d 360, 363

- 6 4 ( F l a . Di s t
. Ct
. App
. 19 86 ); fo r k li f ts , Weir v. C row n E quip . Co rp . , 21 7 F
. 3d 453, 460- 61 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( applying Ind i ana l aw ); Hab e cke rv. Clark Equ ip. Co. , 94 2 F
. 2d 21 0, 21 4 ( 3d Ci r . 1 99 1) ( apply i ng P e n n sy lva n ia la w ); sn ow m ob iles , Sm i t h v
. Ar i e ns Co. , 37 7 N .E .2d 95 4, 95 7 (M as s. 19 78 ); an d tra c to rs , Ku t s u g e r as v. A VC O C o rp . , 973 F
. 2d 13 41 , 1 34 6 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2) ( apply i ng W isc on sin law ); Ro e v . De e r e & Co. , 8 55 F. 2d 151, 15 3 ( 3d Cir
. 1988) ( applying Pennsyl vani a l aw )
. W e hav e no t f ound an I l l i noi s deci si on o n poi nt, but seve ra l st ate s ha ve e xpl i ci tly r ec o g ni ze d the a ppl i ca ti o n of the do ct r i ne to rid in g m ow er s. B a k er v. O utbo a rd M a ri ne C o rp., 595 F.2 d 17 6, 17 7 n .1 (3d C i r . 19 79 ) (ap p lyin g P en n sy lva n ia law ); Tafoy a , 8 8 4 F
. 2 d a t1 3 3 8

- 3 9 ( a pp l y i ngCo l o r a do law ); Yo un g v . D eere & C o ., 81 8 F
. Supp. 14 20 , 14 22 ( D. Kan. 19 92 ) (ap p lyin g K an sa s la w ); Har r i s on v. M cDonough Pow e rEqu ip. , Inc . , 38 1 F
. S up p. 92 6, 93 0 ( S. D. Fl a. 19 74) (app lyi ng Fl orida law ). W e s ee n o p rin c ip led ba sis to co n c lu d e t h at Il lin ois courts w oul d requi re carm anufa cture rs to f or ese e that ac ci den ts o cc urwi tha utom obi l es , whi l e al l o wi ngmanu-N o. 08

- 3855 33 f actur er s o fr i ding m ow er s to prete nd thatacc i dents i nvol vi n g r i ding m owers ar e uncom m on. A cci dents o n r i di ngmower s ar e f o r es ee ab l e j us t as a cc i den ts o n o ur ro ad w ay s a re . See C O NSU M ER P R OD UCT S AF ETY C O M M IS S I ON , R I DI NG L AWN M O W ERS, h t t p: //w w w . cpsc. gov / c p sc p u b /p u b s/ 58 8.h tm l (las t v isit ed N ov . 15, 20 10 ) (es tim at in g t h at 37,00 0 inj u rie s re lat ed to rid in g-m ow er ac c idents were tr eat ed annual l y in hospi talem er gency ro om s fro m 20 03 th ro u gh 2 00 5); V an es sa C os tilla & D av id M . B ish ai, Law nm ow erInjuri es in the U nite d State s: 1996 t o 2004 , 4 7 A NNALS OF E M ERG EN CY M EDICI NE 567, 56 9- 70 (2006) (find ing th at betw een 1996 an d 2004 th e p r im ary diagnosi s was l acer ati on f orthe 66 3,393 l aw nm ower i nj ur i es tr ea te d i n Uni te d S ta te s emer g en cyr o o m s)
. And th e O P C is aim e d a t t h e p re c ise circ u m st an c e in th is ca se : a n e xt r emi tyc o m es i nt o c o nt ac t wi ththe c ut ting bl ade whi l e th e o per at o r i s no t ful l y i n c o nt r o l o fthe m ow er . Se eKl e i n v . Se ars Roe buc k& Co. , 77 3 F
. 2d 1421 , 1425 n.2 ( 4th C ir
. 1985) (app lyi ng M aryland l aw ); Southland M ow erCo
. v. Co nsum erP ro d
. Safe ty Com m ’n , 61 9 F.2 d 49 9, 51 4 (5th C ir. 19 80 ); Winters v. C o un try H o m e P rod s., Inc
. , 6 5 4 F
. S u p p . 2 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 8 ( D. Mo n t
. 2 0 0 9 ) ( appl y i ng M ontana l aw ) . G ive n the num bero facc i dents, and that Illino is law rec og n ize s t h at ac c id en t s a re fore se ea b le w hen u sin g c er tain products, M al en’ s inj ury here had to ha ve be en an ti ci pat ed. W ha t M al en di d w ith the m o we r h e r e ma y n o t h a v e ma d e h i m a mo d e l u s e r, b ut th ati s no t d isposi ti ve f o r the pur po se s o fthe c r as hw or thi ness doctr i ne. A nd so t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’ s co ncl usi on that M al en ’ s be ha vi o r b r o k e th e ch ain o f cau sat i o n whe n h e disr ega rded an e xpli ci t warni ng i s no t c onsis tent w i th34 N o. 08

- 3855

M TD Produ ct s and H o m e D ep o t al so as se rtthatthe absence 2 ofthe i neffectual s afety int er lo ck s yst em could not have been a s ub st anti al f act or i n causi ng M ale n’ s inj ury b ecaus e M ale n d id no t kn ow tha t the Y ard -M an ha d a n O P C o r N C R an d so he could not have been ex pecti ng the device s to prote ct hi m whenhe dis m ount ed wi th the bl ade e nga ge d. I n the defe nda nt s ’ vi e w, s i nc e Mal e n di d n otk no w tha tthe m ower w as ( theore ti cal ly) equipped w ith a n O P C, he “cannot say that his act ions w ould hav e been different had the O PC been 

### (continued...) th e c ra sh w or th in es s d oc tr i n e a s a d op te d in Illin ois . A j u ryco uld s ti l l co ncl ud e that the m ower was unrea sonab l y dange ro us and t h at the absence o ffuncti onal safety m ech an ism s w as th e prox im ate ca us e of M alen’s i nj u ry . Se eBla ckv. M & W Ge arCo. , 2 6 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 20, 12 36 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 1) ( apply i ngOk l ah o m a la w i n c o nc l udi ng that evi dence ofplai nti ff’ s a l coholco nsum pti on was irre lev an t t o s h ow ca u sa tio n w h en p lain tiff’s cla im th atmowerl ac k i ngr o l l

- o ve r - pr o tect i o n was no t cr as hw or th y); P ree, 983 F.2d a t 866 n
. 3 (app lyi ng M issouri l aw and s tat i ng that evi dence of oper ato r’s into xi cati on i s i rr el evantin a st ri ct t or t l i abi l i ty acti on under cra shw or th i ness doctr i ne)
. W hethero r not M al en i ni ti at ed a c ha i n o fe ve nt s th ate nde d wi thhi m b eing i nj ured

—bywedgi ngthe mowero n the c urb, a tt empti ng to r o cki t l o o se , a nd di smoun tingwi th o utc ut tingthe en g i ne

— th e cr as hwor th i ne ss do ct r i ne o bl i g at ed the d efe n d an ts to fore se e t h e p ot en tia l for th is t y p e o f ac c ident. T h us, sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants on th is ground w as im p rop er. 2N o. 08

- 3855 35



### (...continued) c onn ec t ed. ” ButwhenM al endi s m ount ed he though tthe b la d e h a d sto p p ed . H e t es tifi ed th a t h e l ifte d h is fo o t o ff the blade engag em en t pedal and d id not know thathe had in a d v er te n tly lo ck ed th e p ed a l d o w n . Lastl y, ev en i fM al en’ s a cti ons can be char acte ri zed as ne g l i g e nt, thi s g o e s o nly t o a pp o r t i o ningc o mpa r ati ve f aul t. U nd erIl l i noi s l aw , wh ethera cl ai m i s ba sed o n negl i gence o r str i ct pr oducts li abi l i ty, an inj ured party i s b a r r e d fr o m r e c o v e r i ng o nly i f the t r i e r o ff act fi nd s that his c on d u ct was m or e than 50% o fthe proxi m ate c a us e o fthe i nj ur y f o r whi c h r e c o v e r y i s so ught
. 7 3 5 I LCS 5/ 2-1 11 6; Tide m ann , 22 4 F
. 3d at 725; Freisli n g e r v. E m ro P ropan eCo. , 9 9 F
. 3 d 1 4 1 2 , 1 4 1 7( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( a p p l y i ng Ill i n o i s law ); Wi l l i am s v. Br own M f g. Co. , 26 1 N
. E.2 d 305, 310 ( I l l
. 19 70)
. Com parat i ve f aul t a pp l i es so that f or m er defe nses such as contr ib u to rynegl i gence , as sum pti on o f r i s k, a n d m i s u s e o fth e p r o d u c ta r e me r e l y d a mag e-r ed u c in g fa c to rs . B yrn e v. SCM C o rp . , 53 8 N
. E.2 d 796, 81 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 89 ); Tenn a nt v . Cla rk E quip . Co ., 49 2 N
. E
. 2d 632, 636 (I ll. A p p . Ct
. 1986). So l ong as M alen’s negl i gence ( i ft h er e re al l y was anyatal l ) was not gr eat er than 50 % o fthe cause ofh is inj ury, the pla i nti ff s a re not bar re d fr om r eco ver i ng. B as ed on the abov e, and dr aw i ng al l i nfe re nces in f av o r o fthe M al en s a nd v i ewi ngthe f ac ts i n the l i g ht m ostf avo rabl e t o them , we concl ud e t h at a j ury re aso nabl y c o ul d fi nd tha t th e defec ti ve c o ndi ti o n o fthe m ower was the proxi m ate cause o fM al en’ s inj ury.36 N o. 08

- 3855 I I I . C ONC L US I ON T h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’ s g ra n t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t is R EVER S ED , and the case i s R EMAND ED f or p ro ceedi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

11- 19- 10