The H onorab le Sarah Evan s Bark er, Ju d ge ofthe Un it ed  St at es Dis t ri c tCour tf or the So uthe rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## 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. 12

- 2616 P AT R I CI A F ERRARO , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. H EWLET T -P ACK ARD C OMPAN Y, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t forthe North er nDi str ic t of Ill in ois, E a ste rnDi vis ion No . 08 C3638

—E dmun d E . C hang,Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 24, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 3, 2013

Befo re M ANI ON an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges, a nd B ARKER, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  W OO D , C irc u i t Judge. P at r i ci a F er r ar o s uffer ed se r i o us burns on herar m afterf al l i n g asle ep next t o the power ada pte r o fhe r ne wl y pur ch as ed H ew l et t- Pa ck ar d ( H P)2 N o. 12

- 2616 l aptop co m pu ter
. S he fi l ed a pr oduct l i abi l i ty sui t a gai nst H P, al l eg in g that heri nj ury re sul ted fro m a desi gn defect that al l owed the pow er a d apterto o ver heat. S he al so cl aim ed thatH P f ai l ed to i ncl ud e a dequ ate warni ngs ab o utthe po wer a dapt er ’ s pr o pen si tyt o o ve r he ata nd that H P bre ached an i m pli ed w ar ra nty ofm er chantabi l i ty. A t th e cl ose o fdi sco ver y, H P m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm en t, w h ich th e d ist ric t c ou rtgra n te d in fu ll. T h e c ou rtco n c lu d ed t h a t F er ra ro w ou ld be u n ab le to show that the po werad ap ter w as “u nrea son ably d an gero u s , ” a r e qu i r e d e l e me n to fh e r d e s i g n d e fe c tc l a i m. Und e r I l l i noi s l a w, the r e a r e t wo a l t e r na t i v e me tho ds o fe st ab l i sh i ngtha t el ement : the “ co ns um er - ex pec ta ti o ns te st ” o r the “ r i sk

- ut i l i tyt es t. ” The di strict c o ur t f o und Fer ra ro ’ s e vi dence i nsuffi ci ent t o m eether b u rd en under ei th ero ne of the m . On appe al, F er r ar o a r g ue s th atthe dist ri ct c ourter re d onl y in concl ud i ng tha t s he would be unabl e to pr o ve unr ea so nabl e d an ger o us ne ss unde r the co ns um er - ex pec ta ti o ns te st
. S he ha s no t ch al l en g ed th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on that HP was enti tl ed to su m m ar y j udg m en t unde r th e r i sk

- ut i l i ty te st, no r ha s sh e a pp e a l e d the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s mi s s a l o fh e r de f ecti ve w arning and i m pli ed w ar ra nty cl ai m s. This pu ts he r in an i m possibl e bind
. U nd erI lli noi s l aw , the ri sk- uti l i ty t e s t“ t r umps ” i n de s i g n de fe c tc a s e s i fthe t wo me tho ds o fe st ab l i shin gunr ea so nabl e dan g er o us ne ss y i el d c o nfl i cti ng r esul ts. Because the di str i ct c ourt ’ s findi ng tha t she c oul d not s ucceed under the r i sk- uti l i ty tes t fur ni sh ed ani nde pen den t an d unc ha l l en g ed g r o und f o r th e d e c i s i o n, w e a ffi r m.N o. 12

- 2616 3 I I n M ay 2006 , Fe rr ar o pu rchas ed a new H P DV 800 N ote boo k l apt op fr om a l oca l Best Bu y s tor e. One w eek l at er, whi l e si tt i ngo n h er s o f a an d us i nghe r l apt o p, s he no t i c e d th a tth e b a t t e r y wa s r u n n i n gl o w. F e r r a r o s hut dow n the l apt o p, pl ac ed i t o n a ne arbyc o ffee t ab l e, a nd plu g g e d the l a pt o p’ s p o we r c o r d int o the wa l l
. Mi dway al ong the cor d i s the power adapter, a bri ck- shaped p l a s t i c d e vi c e h o u s i n ga t r a n s f o r me r, wh i c h c o n v e r t s AC el ectr i ci ty f ro m the outl et i n to D C el ectr i ci ty used by th e l apt o p. Fe rr ar o pr o pped th e po wer a dapt ero n the ar m o fherso f a, beg an r eadi ng a boo k, and fel l as l eep a r o u n d 1 0 : 0 0 p . m. A ts o me po i ntdu r i ngthe n i g ht, the p o we r a da pt er sl i pp ed fro m the so f a’ s arm , f al l i ng be tw een the cushi ons. A s Ferraro slept, the ex p osed s k in of her right forearm c am e t o re st ag ain st on e o f th e a d ap te r’s s u r f a c es . I t is uncle arhow l ong Fer ra ro ’ s s ki n w as in dir ect conta ct wi ththe a dapt er, b uts he e ve ntua l l y a wok e wi thpa i nful bl i st er s atthe po i nto fc o nt act. Fer r ar o t r ea te d the burnwi th c o l d wa t e r a nd wr a pp e d h e ra r m wi th g a uz e, buts he was unabl e to f al l b ac ka sl ee p b ec au se o fthe p ain. Ferraro, a C hicag o police officer, reporte d to w ork ear l y the next m or n in g. She re cei ved so m e m edi calat
te nt i o n a t a fi r e st at i o n whi l e patrol li nghe r b ea t an d w en t to a n em ergen cy room at 3: 00 p
. m . once her sh ift e nd e d. Do c t o r s di a g no s e d he r wi th s e c o nd

- a nd thi rd

degre e bur ns. Fer ra ro fi l ed sui t a gai nst HP ( and agai ns t B estBuy, whi chi s no l o ng erpa r t o fthi s di spu te ) i n 2 00 8, a ss er ting4 N o. 12

- 2616 claim s base d on strict prod uc t li abili ty an d i m p li ed w arra nty o fm er chantabi l i ty. Fo r pu rpos es ofherst ri ct product l i abi l i ty theo ry, she al l ege d that the l aptop was defec ti ve l y des i g ne d be ca us e i t “o ve r he at [ ed] du r i ng nor m al and for ese eabl e use” and that i t l acke d “ adequate o r s uffi c i e ntwa r ning s . ” Du r i ngdi s c o v e r y, ea c h s i de p re se n te d th re e e x p er t w i t n e ss es , w h os e p ro ffer ed te st im ony w e no w sum m ar i ze. Fer ra ro ’ s firstexper t was Pet erPocz ynok, a m echani cal en g i ne era nd l i ti g at i o n c o ns ultant. Af te r r ev i ewi ngthe pow eradapter, H P m anual s, and deposi ti on t ra nscri pts, Poczy nok concl ud ed thatH P shoul d have incl ud ed addit i o na l war ni ng s wi ththe l apt o p o r the a dapt era nd tha t HP s ho ul d ha v e de s i g ne d the a da pt e r di ffe r e nt l y t o re du ce the am ount o fheati t g ener ate d. H e s ugges ted th atthe t r an sfor m erc o ul d ha ve b ee n h o us ed i ns i de th e l aptop i tse l f, as o pp ose d to i nsid e the exte rnalpow er ad ap te r; th at th e a d ap te r c ou ld h av e in c lu d ed a b u ilt-in f an to hel p vent heat; thatthe adap te r coul d have be en m anufa cture d w i th a “heatsh i el d”; and that the b ox hou sin g the a dap terco uld have bee n l ar gerto al l ow f o r g r ea te r a i r c i r cul at i o n. N athani elJ ohnson, an e l ectr i calengineerwh o m easure d the hea t g ener ate d by the p ow eradapterunder var i ous c ondit i ons, was Fer ra ro ’ s s eco n d exper t. J ohnson firs t t oo k t h e p ow er ad ap te r’s te m p er at u re w h en it w as oper ati ng o n a fl at tabl eto p sur f ace; the adapter re ac h ed a te m p er at u re of 58 .5 d eg re es C els iu s (1 37 .3 degre es Fahr enhei t) after90 m i nutes. J ohn son then co ve r ed the to p ofthe adapt erw i tha co tt o n t o wel, a nd theN o. 12

- 2616 5 tem perature ro se to 77. 2 

### / C (1 70. 96 ° F)
. J ohnson opi ned th at th ese tem p eratu res p osed severe bu rn risks , pa rti cul ar l y s i nce i t i s co m m on pra cti ce forco nsum er s t o us e l apt o p c o m put er s i n b ed o r o n a c o uch, where a i r fl o w ar o un d the p o we r a da pt e r mi g htb e r e s t r i c t e d. H e su g g es te d tha t th e si x- f o o t po wer c o r d c onne ct i ng the power adapter to t h e wal l o utl et coul d have be en shor tened ( and that the se gm ent l i nki ng the pow er adapter to the c om pu terco uld have bee n l engthe ned by a co rr espon d i ng am ount) , r educing the l i kel i hood that a use r w oul d c om e in to conta ct with the pow er ad ap ter. Fi nal l y, Dr. Rober t Cu ci n, a doctor w i th board ce rt i fi cati o ns i n g e ne r a l s ur g e r y a nd p l a s t i c s ur g e r y, t e s t i f i ed abou t bu rn inj uries. Cu cin ex p lai ne d that skin w il l bu rn aft er 50 m in u te s o f d ire c t c on ta c t w i t h a su rfa c e t h at is 50 

### / C ( 122 °F). H e also sai d that peo p le som etim es incorpo r at e “pa i n i nt o the ir dr ea m s an d m ayno t wak e up f ro m i t r i ght a w ay, ” c iti ng exam ple s o fper sons burned by sl eepi ng pads. H P’s th r ee e xpe r ts c ha l l en g ed m an y o fthe se c o nc l usi ons. Dr. Raph ael Lee, a bo ar d-cer ti fi ed surg eon speci al i zin g in p las tic su r g e r y a n d bu rn ca re , tes tifie d th at sk in tem perature of46 

### / C ( 114.8 ° F) is associated w ith severe p ain and 52 

### / C ( 1 2 5
. 6 ° F ) i s a s s o c i a t e d w i th s e c o nd

degre e bur ns. H e co n c lu d ed that, “under no rm alphysiolog ica l co n d itio n s,” an ind ivid u a l w h os e s kin is i n con tact wi tha po wer a dapt erl i k e th e o ne a t i ss ue here would feel severe pai n w i thi n m i nutes a nd that “n o r m ali nv o l unt ar y s pi na l r efl ex es woul d c au se wi th

-6 N o. 12

- 2616 dr awalo fthe s k i n fr o m the sour ce o fthe pa i n i n a m atter of secon d s.” Don Ga ll er, an electrical enginee r, tes ti fi ed that t he H P pow eradapterwas com pli ant with the r el evant“i nter nati onalst an d ar d fo r safety, ” which dict ate s a “m axi m um al l owable te m perature” o f95 

### / C ( 203 ° F). G aller i nfe rr ed, bas ed on thi s r el ati vel y hi gh t e mp e r a t u r e , t h a tt h e i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d d o e s n o tc o n t e mpl a t e c o nt i nu o us c o nt a c tb e t we e n the p r o du c ta nd a con su m er ’ s sk i n. F i na l l y, Ra i na S ha h, a human f acto rs engi neerand consul tant, te sti fi ed that H P w as not re quir ed to provi de user s w i th add i ti onal w arning s, gi ven the i nter n at ionalst andard and the absence o f si m i l arwarni ngs o n the pow eradapter s o fm osto ther m anu facturer s’ l aptops. S he expl ai ned that the devi ce w as desi gned to be pla ced on a fl at surf ace ( i.e. , the fl oo r ora de s k ) ; tha ta n o r di na r y u s e r wo ul d c e a s e c o nt a ct be f o r e su ff er i ng an y burns i n th e ev en t of i na dve r te nt co nt act; a nd tha t th er e was no hi st o r y o fs ev er e burns assoc iated w ith th e H P lap top pow er ad ap ter. A t the close ofdi s c o very, H P m oved f or sum m ary j ud gm en t on a l l cl ai m s. To defeatthe m oti on o n her d es ign d efe c t c laim , Fer ra ro n ee d ed to int ro d u c e e viden ce tha t woul d ha ve s uppo r te d a fi ndi ng( among ot h er th in gs ) th at t h e p ow er ad ap te r w as “u n re as on ab ly da ng e r o us . ” S he c o ul d d o s o thr o ugh o ne o ft wo a pproa ches: the consum er - expectat i ons tes t orthe ri sk- uti l i ty test. U nd er the con su m er-e x p ecta tions test, a plaintiff m ays ho w unr ea so nabl e dan g er o us ne ss b y de m o nstra tin g that the pro du ct “ f ai l ed to per f or m as sa fel y a s an o rd inaryco nsum erwould expect w hen used i n an i ntended or re aso nabl y forese eabl e m anner. ” Lamkin v.N o. 12

- 2616 7 To w ner, 563 N
. E
. 2d 449, 457 (I ll
. 1990). T he district cou rt co nc l ude d tha t no r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fi nd “ unr eas o nabl e danger ousness ” und erthi s a pp ro ach, since “f al l [ i ng] asl eep wh i l e using the co m pu ter
. . . i s no t the i ntended us e o fa po wer ada pte r ( po wer i ngthe l apt o p a nd c ha r g i ng i ts b at te ry ), nora use that i s for ese eabl y s i m i l arto i ts i nten d ed use. ” The co urt al l owed the possibi l i ty that Fer ra ro was m aki ng “the m or e l i m i te d a rgum ent that an o rdi naryco nsum erw ou ld expect that the power a da pt e r wo ul d no t g e ts o h o ttha ti two ul d ins tantaneously c au se a b u rn ,” b u t ite x p l a i n ed th at th er e w as n o e vidence tha t th i s i s whatha ppen ed. Acco r di ng l y, the cour t co ncl ud ed that “H P i s e nti tl ed to s u m m ar y j ud gm en t on th e c ons um er-exp ecta tions li abili ty-the ory because no reas on ab l e j ury coul d find thatthe pow er adapter w as unreas onabl y d an ger ous fori ts i ntended (or fore se ea b ly sim ilar ) u se .” I n th e alte rna tive, the d istri ct cou rt rej ecte d Ferraro’s ar gu m en t th at h er ev id en c e c ou ld es ta b lish “u n re as on ab le dangero usness” under the r i sk- uti l i ty tes t. The ri sk- uti l i ty tes t r equi re s a pl ainti ffto sho w that“the r i sk ofdanger i nhe r en t i n the de si g n o fthe pr o ducto ut wei g hs the benefi ts ofthe desi gn. ” Sob cz ak v
. Ge ne r al M ot ors Corp. , 87 1 N .E .2d 82 , 92 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 07 ); Call e s v. Sc r ipt o- Tokai Corp
. , 86 4 N
. E.2 d 2 49 , 25 7- 63 ( I l l
. 20 07)
. I l l i noi s co urts consi der a br oa d range o ff acto rs i n thei r ri sk- uti l i ty an al y si s, i nc l udi ngthe magn i tu de and pr o babi l i tyo fthe f or ese eabl e r i sks o fhar m ; the i nstr ucti ons and w ar ni ngs acco m panyi ng the pro du ct; the nature and str ength of co ns um ere xpe ct at i o ns r eg ar di ngthe pr o duct, i nc l udi ng expe c t a t i o ns a r i s i ngfr o m pr o du c tp o r t r a y a l a nd ma r k e t-8 N o. 12

- 2616 i ng; the l i kel y eff ects of any al ter nati ve desi gns on p ro du cti on co sts ; and conf or m i ty w i th i nd ustr y s tandards, v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n g u i d e l i n e s , a n d g o v e r n me nt re gul ati on. S ee M i kol aj cz yk v
. Ford M ot orCo. , 90 1 N
. E.2 d 32 9, 33 5 (Ill. 20 08 ); Jab l ons kiv. Fo r d M ot orCo. , 95 5 N
. E.2 d 1138 , 11 54 ( I l l
. 20 11)
. The di str i ct c ourtco nsi dered seve ra l o fthes e f acto rs , c oncl ud ed that none t i pp ed in Ferraro’s f avor, and held t h at “n o reason able j ury cou ld fi nd f or Ferraro ( w ho be ars t h e bu rd en of p roof) u n d er th e ris k-u tilit y t es t.” Fi nal l y, the dist ri ct c ourtr ej ecte d Fer ra ro ’ s a rgum ents that the power adapter w as defe cti ve beca u se it l acke d adequate warni ngs a n d t h at H P br eached an i m pli ed w arran ty of m erch an tabili ty. Ferraro’s f ail ure -to-w arn the o r y wa s u na v a i l i ng, the di s t r i c tc o ur tr e a s o ne d, b ec au se th er e w as n o e vid en c e t h at H P h ad sp ec ial kn ow ledge o fthe adapter’ s p ro pensi ty to burn co nsum er s o r that the b urn dangerwas non- obvi ous. Se e Sol l am iv. Eaton , 72 2 N
. E.2 d 215, 21 9 (I l l
. 2002)
. The i m pli ed-warr anty cl ai m f ai l ed be ca us e i t “r equi r e[ d] a sh o wi ng th at the goo ds w er e . . . unfi t for the o rdi narypurposes f orwh i ch the g oo ds ar e use d,” se e M al dona do v. Cre at i veWoodw orking Co ncepts, Inc. , 3 4 2 I l l
. App
. 3 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 4 ( I l l
. App
. Ct. 20 03) , and the cour t thought that F er ra ro “d[ i d] no t al l ege , l et al one prov ide evi dence, thatH P’s pow er ad ap ter w as u nfit i n fulfi ll ing [i ts] pu rp oses [of] pr o vi d[ i ng ] po wer t o the l apt o p a nd
. . . c ha r g [ i ng ] the lapto p battery.” A ccord ingly, th e c o urt grante d H P’s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a nd di sm i sse d the ca se.N o. 12

- 2616 9 II I n re vi ew i ng the gr ant of a m oti on f or sum m ar y judgm en t, w e c on st ru e t h e fa c ts an d d ra w all rea so n ab le in fer en c es in fa vo r of t h e n o n m o v in g p ar ty
. Sojka v. Bo vis Lend Le ase, Inc. , 686 F.3d 394 , 397 (7th C ir. 2012). Sum m ary j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pri ate i fther e i s no ge nuine dispute o fmate r i alf ac t, a nd the m o va nti s en ti tl ed to j udg m en t as a m at te r o flaw
. Id. I m p ortan tly, before this court Fer ra ro ar gues onl y that th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c o ncl ud i ng tha t HP w as enti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent under th e co ns um er - ex pec ta ti o ns t es t. S he do es not c o nt es t th e di st r i ct cour t’ s ho l di ngtha t no r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fi nd for he r un d er the r is k-utili ty test, nor doe s she assert that th e di str i ct c ourter re d i n gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm en t o n herf ai l ure- to- w ar n and i m pli ed w ar ra nty o f m er chantabi l i ty cl ai m s. I t i s unf or tunate f orFe rr ar o that w e m ust l eave the ri sku tilit y a n aly sis u n to u c h ed . Th is i s s o b ec au se it w oul d have t ake n cente r sta ge, gi ven o ur incl i nati on t o agree w ith Ferraro’s cha ll en ge to the district cou rt’s consum er - expectat i ons anal ysi s. The l att erte st ask s whethe r a pr o ducti s “u nr ea so nably dang er o us ” i n the se ns e th at i t was “u ns afe when put to a us e th ati s r ea so nab ly for es ee ab le c on si d er in g its n at u re an d fu n c tio n .” M i kol aj cz yk, 90 1 N
. E.2 d at 3 52; I PI Ci vi l ( 200 6) N o. 400
. 06. T h e d ist ri c t c ou rtbe liev ed th at Fe rra ro w ou ld be u n ab le to preva i l under thi s s tanda rd, since “f al l [ i ng] as l eep w h ile using the com p ut er . . . i s not th e inten d ed use of a p ow er ad ap te r.” B u t w e f in d th is foc u s t o b e u n d u ly narr ow. I t o ver l oo ks the f act th at l aptops a re desi gned10 N o. 12

- 2616 pr ec i se l y t o b e us ed i n c o m f o r tabl e pl ac es , i nc l udi ng so f a s , b e ds , La

- Z- Bo y s , o r o the r pl a c e s whe r e pe o pl e m ay nod off
. By ta kin g such a r est ri cted vi ew o fthe preci se m an ne r i n w hich Ferraro’s harm m at e r ia li zed , the cou rt si destepped the undisputed f act that, atthe tim e of her i nj ury, Fe rr ar o w as usi ng the pow eradapterto do j ust w ha t it w as d esigned to do: charge her lapt o p . Ferraro i s no t a rguingthatthe pow eradaptero ver heate d w hen she t ri ed to use i t t o heat her bl anket, o r that i t m ade f or a poo r dri nk co ast er orpaperwei ght; r ather, she ass er ts that i t was u n re aso nabl y dange ro us w hen used f ori ts in te n d ed p u rp os e. Cf
. C a lles , 8 6 4 N
. E
. 2 d a t 2 5 6 ( “ We no w con si derwhethe r the Ai m N Fl ame mee ts the con su m er-exp ecta tion test. Th e pu rp ose of a li gh ter, su c h as th e A im N Fla m e, is to p ro d u c e a flam e.” ). HP ma y b e c o r re ct tha tF e r r a r o wa s n o tu s i ngthe p r o duc t in the preci se m an ne r i nt en d ed by the m an ufac tu rer, i ns ofar as the po wer a dapt erwas de si g ne d t o r es t o n a fl ats ur f ac e wi tha m pl e ve nt i l at i o n, b utthi s i s be si de th e poi nt. The appropr i ate i nquir y forthe consum er - expecta tio n s t es t is w h et h er th e p ro d u c t p er for m ed as sa fely as an ord in ar y c on su m er w ou ld ex p ec t w h en u se d in

“ a n i nt en de d o r re aso nabl y for ese eabl e m anner. ” Lam kin , 563 N
. E.2 d at 4 57 ( em phasi s add ed). The gr eatvi rtue o f a l apt o p i s th ati t ca n b e us ed on one ’s l ap, whi l e si tt i ng on a so f a, or p erhaps w hi l e in bed. I nd eed, we note that th e F ac eb o o kpag e f o r “Usi ngthe l apt o p i n b ed” ( M i ss i o n: “P u b lic aw ar eness o fthe usage o fl aptops in bed”) has n e a r l yo n e m i l l i o n“ L i k e s . ” S e e h t t p s : //ww w. f a c e b o o k
. c o m/ pages/U si ng- the- l aptop- i n-be d/954 4595 5714 ?fre f=ts ( l ast vi si te d J une 2 8, 2 01 3)
. Oura na l ysi s woul d b e noN o. 12

- 2616 11 di ff er en t i fthe po wer a dapt erha d s tarte d a fi r e i n the so f a whi l e F er r ar o was i n th e ne xt r o o m ; i n ei th er ca se , the consum er ’ s use of t h e p ro d u c t w ou ld be t h e sa m e. A j ury coul d concl ud e that F er ra ro was usi ng the p ow er adapter i n a “ re aso nabl y for ese eabl e” m anner w hen the r e l e v a nth a r m o c c ur r e d. T his i s no t to s aytha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co nc erns abou t the m an ne r i n w hic h Ferraro w as inj ure d are i rre l evantunder the co nsum er - expectat i ons tes t: ev en i fs he wer e to s ucc ee d i n s ho wi ng“ unr easonab l e dan

ger ousness ” un d er this approa ch, to pre vai lattr i al Fer ra ro sti l l w oul d ne ed to prove that th e d efecti ve desi gn pro xi m ate l y c aused heri nj uri es. S ee Gil b ertson v. Rols cre e n Co. , 501 N
. E.2 d 9 54, 957 ( I l l
. Ct. A pp . 19 86) ( “Even i f w e w er e to accept the pla i nti ff’ s ar gum ent that [the] ‘p ro d u c t’ w as u n re as on ab ly d an ge ro u s, w e w ou ld st ill be c o m pel l ed to fi nd f or the de fen dan ts he r e, f o r the defe nd ants have not been shown to be t h e le galcause o fp lain tiff’s inju ry .”); K le en v. H om ak M fg. Co
. , Inc. , 749 N
. E.2 d 26, 31 ( I l l
. Ct. A pp . 20 01) ( “A p lain tiffm ust pro ve th at th e a lleg ed d efe c t in th e p ro d u c t w as an ac tu al [p ro x im ate] cau se of th e inj uries rath er th an a m ere con d iti on.”). T h is i s a se parat e inquir y under I l l i noi s l aw , f ocuse d on wh etherthe pow eradap ter ’ s defecti ve desi gn was a cause that “i n natura l o r probabl e s equence, pro d u c ed the inj ury c om p l ai ned of
. ” I PI Ci vi l ( 2006 ) N o. 40 0. 04 ( St ri ct Li abi l i ty

— Pro xi m ate Cause

— D efi ni t ion ). A j ury m ight co nc l ude th at i t was “n atur al o r pr o babl e” f o r a dangero usl y ho t pow er a d apterto st ar t a fi re , but not “natur alo r probabl e” fo r it t o burn a consum erwh o, f or12 N o. 12

- 2616 wh a t e v e r r e a s o n, f a i l e d t o r e a c tw h e n h e r s k i n c a me into di r ec t co nt ac t wi ththe ho t su r f ac e. Li ab i l i tymight d ep en d on how th e j ury resolved com p eting ex p ert testim ony regard ing the i nc orp oration of pain into on e’s d re am s, or the j ury’ s opi ni on of how unu sualit is f orco nsum er s t o use l aptops “ und er[ ab] nor m alphysi ol ogi calco nd i ti ons ” ( e . g. , un d er th e in flu en c e o f alc oh ol, presc r i pt i o n dr ug s , o r s l e e pi nga i ds )
. P r o xi mat e c a us e, how eve r, “i s g ener al l y a questi on o ff act” to be resol ved b y t h e jur y, n otth e c ou rt
. Yo u n gv . B ry c o A r ms , 82 1 N
. E.2 d 1078 , 1086 (I ll
. 2004). W ha te ve r the mer i ts of h era r g um en ts unde r the consum er - expectat i ons tes t, however, Fe rr ar o’ s f ailure to chal l en ge the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r i sk- uti l i ty deter m i nati on is fatal to he r ap p eal. A s w e not ed at th e ou ts e t, the re ar e t wo me tho ds o fp r o v i ngu nr e a s o nab l e da ng e r o us ne ss und erI l l i noi s l aw , and a pla i nti ffm ay preva i l under ei therthe c onsum er - expectat i ons tes t o r the r i sk- uti l i ty tes t. A s the S up re m e Court of Il l i noi s r ecent l y e xplai ned i n M i kol aj cz yk, however, the exi ste nce o ftwo te sts r ai ses the pos sibility that a “ product co uld be f ound un re asonab l y dange ro us under the co nsum er - expectat i on test, but ri sk-ut il ity analysis could reveal that an alterna tive i s not av ail a b le, or th at ava il able alternatives are not fea sibl e, o r that the b enefi ts ofthe desi gn o utw ei gh i ts i nherentr i sks
. ” 9 01 N
. E.2 d at 3 49. W h er e th e t w o tes ts yi el d confl i cti ng r esul ts, the M i kol aj cz ykc o ur t he l d, the ri sk- uti l i ty tes t “ tr um ps, ” a nd the product i s deem ed not un r e a s o nab l y da ng e r o us ( no t wi ths t a nd i ngc o ns ume r s’ ex p ec ta tio n s t h at th e p ro d u c t w ou ld be sa fer ). Id. at 352. U nl ess “bo th par ti es’ theo ri es of th e ca se ar e fra m edN o. 12

- 2616 13

en tirel y i n term s of con su m er exp ecta tions” (an d Ferraro con ced ed a t oralargum en t tha t this is not the ca se he re), thi s “ bro ader [ ri sk- uti l i ty] te st
. . . i s t o be a pp l i ed by the fi nd ero ff act. ” Id. ; I P IC i vi l ( 2 0 0 6 ) No
. 4 0 0
. 0 6 A, N ote s o n U se. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco n sid er ed w h et h er Fe rra ro co u ld preva i l under the r i sk- uti l i ty tes t a nd deter m i ned that “none ofthe ri sk- uti l i ty f acto rs weigh in F er ra ro ’ s f avor . ” As part ofthi s a nal ysis, the cour t a cknowle dged that tw o ofFe rr ar o’ s e xperts offer ed opi ni ons re gard ing othe r pot e nt ialde signs for the p ow er ad ap ter, buti t emphas i ze d tha t ne i th ere xpe r t “p resen t[ ed] a ny evi dence di scussing the f e as i b ility of any of th ese alterna t i v e s . ” T he c o ur ta l s o we i g he d “ the ma g ni t ud e and probabi l i ty ofthe f or ese eabl e r i sks o fharm ,” note d H P’s evid en ce of com p li an ce w ith rele v a n t regulatory stan d ard s, an d highlighted the ab sen c e of an y “history of s e v e re bu rn s a ss oc iat ed w ith th e H P p ow er ad ap te r.” This w as enough f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto c on c lude that no r eas onabl e j ury coul d find f orFe rr aro under the r i skuti l i ty tes t. As we sa i d, we ex pr es s no o pi ni o n o n thi s par t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a nal ysi s. Fe rr ar o’ s “ f ai l ure to advance on a pp ealany ar gu m en ts w i th r espectto thi s a l ter nate g ro u n d m ea n s t h at an y c h alle n ge to th at gro u n d is w ai ved. ” Se ne s e v. Chi. Are a Int ’ l Bhd. of Teamst ers P ension Fun d, 23 7 F.3d 81 9, 82 3 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ); cf
. Hess v. Reg -E llen M ac h. Tool Corp. , 423 F.3d 653 , 664-65 (7th C ir. 2005 ). A bsent s o me a r g ume ntt o the c o nt r a r y, we mus ta c c e pt th atno r ea so nabl e j ury co uld fi nd fo r F er r ar o unde r the14 N o. 12

- 2616

r i s k

- u t i l i t y t e s t, wh i c h i s th e a p p r o a c h u p o n wh i c h HP wo u l d b e e n t i t l e d t o i n s i s t a t t r i a l
. HP th u s r emai ns enti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent. Bec au se the r e i s a su ffi ci en t an d unc ha l l en g ed g r o und ofthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on, we A FF IRM th e j udg m en t of t h e d ist ric t c ou rtin fa vo r of H P
.

M A NI ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, conc urring. T he district cou rt ru led th at th e p ow er ad ap te r w as n ot“u n re as on ab ly d an gerou s” u nd er the risk-utili ty test, and as t h e cou rt co r r ec tl y c o nc l ude s, the r i sk

- ut i l i tyt es t “ tr um ps” the c on su m er -ex p ec ta t i on te st w h en th e t w o t es ts yield c on fl i c t i n g res u lts
. Se eM i kol aj czyk v
. Fo r d M ot orCo. , 90 1 N
. E.2 d 3 29, 349- 53 ( I l l
. 2008 )
. Because Fer ra ro d id not appe a l the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r ul i ng o n the r i s k

- ut i l i t y te st, Ia g r e e w i th th e c o u r tth a tw e s h o u l d a ffi r m. W hi l e Iag re e with the cour t’ s deci si on t o affi rm , I am not i nc l i ne d t o j o i n wi ththe cou rt’ s di sc us si o n o fthe co ns um er - ex pec ta ti o n t es t. Ra th er, Ithi nktha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t co r r ec tl y a na l y ze d thi s i ss ue . U nd erthe co ns um er- ex pec ta ti o n t es t, we ex ami ne whethe r the pr o duct“ f ai l ed to pe r f orm a s sa fel y a s ano r di na r y c o nsum erwou ld e x p ect w hen used i n an i ntended or re asonab l y for ese eabl e m anner. ” La m k in v . To w ner, 56 3 N
. E.2 dN o. 12

- 2616 15 449, 45 7 ( I l l
. 19 90)
. Ordi nary co nsum er s know that pow eradapter s ca n beco m e ho t ( i ncl ud i ng wh en lapto p s are u sed i n be d s and other com fortable places). I nd eed, thi s co m m on know l edge w as dem onst ra ted by Fe rraro’ s daughter, wh o tes ti fi ed that her m othe r knew th a t po we r a da pt e r s c a n b e c o me ho t
. I f HP’ s power adapter coul d becom e s o hot that it w oul d quickl y c ause a use r to re act and w i thdraw, a j ury w oul d lik el y b e enti tl ed to decid e w h ether the power adapteri s “ unreaso nab l y da ng e r o us . ” Bu tthe p o we r a da pt e r i n thi s c ase m er el y “ perf or m s a s sa fely as an o rdi naryco nsum er wo u l d e x p e c t
. ” T he r e f o r e , g i v e n th e u n u s u a l c i r c u mst an c es th at ca u se d th e inj u ry in t h is c as e, a re as on ab le j ur y c o ul d no t fi nd tha t th e po w er adapt eri s “u nr ea so nab ly d an ge ro u s.”

7- 3- 13