Opinion ID: 2529268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Voluntary Undertaking

Text: ¶ 121 To the extent that the appellate court alternatively found plaintiffs' fourth theory of recovery cognizable under the voluntary undertaking doctrine, we find the court erred in invoking this doctrine under these circumstances. The non-IPI instruction that plaintiffs proffered and that was submitted to the jury stated as follows: A manufacturer who voluntarily undertakes to provide an after[-]the[-]sale warning to some of its customers may be subject to liability if it does not warn other customers. Whether the manufacturer's conduct in warning some of its customers and not others was reasonable under the circumstances is for you to decide. ¶ 122 The instruction was purportedly premised upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) and this court's rulings in Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 31 Ill.2d 69, 199 N.E.2d 769 (1964), and Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill.2d 223, 271 Ill. Dec. 649, 785 N.E.2d 843 (2003). However, the instruction as submitted to the jury is not an accurate statement of the law. The voluntary undertaking theory as expressed in section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides as follows: § 323. Negligent Performance of Undertaking to Render Services One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965). ¶ 123 As we recently reiterated, [u]nder a voluntary undertaking theory of liability, the duty of care to be imposed upon a defendant is limited to the extent of the undertaking. Bell v. Hutsell, 2011 IL 110724, ¶ 12, 353 Ill.Dec. at 293, 955 N.E.2d at 1104 (2011) (quoting Frye v. Medicare-Glaser Corp., 153 Ill.2d 26, 32, 178 Ill.Dec. 763, 605 N.E.2d 557 (1992)). The theory is narrowly construed. Id. (citing Frye, 153 Ill.2d at 33, 178 Ill.Dec. 763, 605 N.E.2d 557). ¶ 124 In this case, Ford's impetus for developing the optional Trunk Pack and the Trunk Packing Considerations was the result of its Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Blue Ribbon Panel under which Ford and law enforcement representatives agreed to evaluate fuel system upgrades and police procedures as part of a Police Officer Safety Action Plan. The evidence revealed that between 1993 and 2003, law enforcement agencies had become increasingly aware of high-speed rear-end collisions in which police officers were injured or killed due to postcrash fires in Crown Victoria Police Interceptors while performing police duties. ¶ 125 As a result of the panel's findings, Ford developed recommendations for improved police safety procedures, including the Trunk Packing Considerations for Police Vehicles, which advised officers how to place items in the trunk to reduce the potential for trunk contents puncturing the fuel tank, and developed the optional Interceptor Trunk Pack, consisting of a drop-in trunk liner, requiring the police to place objects in the trunk laterally rather than longitudinally. The sticker on the Trunk Pack indicated align hard or sharp police equipment laterally. Ford also developed a website containing information regarding the upgrades to the Police Interceptor and notified fleet customers of the Trunk Pack. However, civilian owners of Panther platform vehicles, including the Jablonskis, never received notice of the availability of these upgrades. ¶ 126 Based upon the evidence at trial, the extent of Ford's undertaking in developing the Trunk Pack and Trunk Packing Considerations was directed specifically at improved police safety related to use of the Police Interceptor. The Trunk Pack was developed for the Police Interceptor by Ford with input from law enforcement to address specific police concerns and that was the impetus for its development, along with the packing considerations for police vehicles. That undertaking did not create a duty owed toward other individual civilian customers. Furthermore, at no time in any of plaintiffs' six iterations of its complaint did they ever contend that Ford undertook a voluntary duty with respect to any nonpolice customers. Consequently, contrary to the appellate court's finding, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on a postsale duty to warn theory based on a voluntary undertaking.