Court Opinion

ID: 9738534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:55:47.831816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.780037
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: The majority recognizes the validity of the “foreseeability” rule for products liability cases as expressed in Winnett v. Winnett but yet it refuses to follow it upon a set of facts strikingly similar to those of the Winnett case. It also concludes that the machine involved in the injury in this case was an unreasonably dangerous one. I disagree with the majority upon both facets of their conclusion, believing that upon the facts present in this case the trial court should have entered judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict. I accordingly respectfully dissent. It would be difficult to find a case factually more similar to Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill. 2d 7, 13, 310 N.E.2d 1, 5, than this one and the decision here should consequently be controlled by Winnett. There, the court concluded: “While in retrospect it can be asserted that the manufacturer of the forage wagon should have foreseen that the unfortunate event in this case might conceivably occur, we do not believe its occurrence was objectively reasonable to expect. It cannot, in our judgment, fairly be said that a manufacturer should reasonably foresee that a four-year-old child will be permitted to approach an operating farm forage wagon or that the child will be permitted to place her fingers in or on the holes in its moving screen.” We need only change the age of the child to two years and nine months and the type of machine to a grain auger and the similarity of this case to Winnett is complete. The majority ignores the similarity of the facts, and the basis of the decision in Winnett, and seeks to distinguish this case from Winnett upon the grounds that there was “no positive evidence that the minor plaintiff was actively playing with or attempting to operate the grain auger.” When the basis of the Winnett decision is considered the distinction advanced by the majority is irrelevant; it would not be objectively reasonable for the manufacturer to expect plaintiff to be injured by the auger either while playing with it or by accidentally falling into it. As the court stated in Gille v. Winnebago County Housing Authority, 44 Ill. 2d 419, 426, 255 N.E.2d 904, 908: “The responsibility for a child’s safety lies primarily with its parents, whose duty is to see that his behavior does not involve danger to himself. Others can be held responsible for injuries only if they are at fault under some recognized theory of liability.” It is likewise irrelevant that an adult might be injured by the machine in question. We are to consider only whether the defendant could reasonably foresee that the plaintiff in question would be injured by the auger. Foreseeability of injury in general simply does not enter into a determination of this particular case. The only question can be whether this particular plaintiff’s injury was reasonably foreseeable. The Winnett case held that it was not and we should follow it. It is frequently said (e.g., Winnett v. Winnett) that the question of foreseeability of injury is one of fact, and that is doubtless true for the very definition of the word denotes such. Even so, it does not, and cannot, follow that in all instances where a question of foreseeability arises that the matter must be determined only by a jury as the trier of questions of fact. The adoption of such a position ignores the role of the court, present in any action upon products liability as well as in negligence actions. When a question of foreseeability arises, as it has in this case, the court must in the first instance determine whether there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact. If only one inference can be drawn no issue of fact is presented and the court should hold either for plaintiff or defendant as a matter of law. That was the course followed by the supreme court in the Winnett case. If, however, more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence, then the court will submit the matter to the jury for determination. Here, as in Winnett, there is but one inference to be drawn from the evidence and the court should therefore have directed a verdict for defendant at the close of all the evidence, holding as a matter of law that it was not foreseeable by defendant that plaintiff would be injured in the manner in which the injury in fact occurred. With regard to the character of the auger as an unreasonably dangerous machine it should be noted that the dangerousness did not result from a flaw in its manufacture, nor in its failure to conform to the intended design, nor from an inadvertent design error. It was a dangerous machine because of a conscious choice in design. The auger was being used in the manner for which it was designed and was functioning in its intended manner. A safety barrier or grid that would prevent any injury to any persons, including wandering minor children, would be manifestly less efficient as a device to auger grain into a bin. The dangerousness of the auger in use here may well be attributable to its usefulness. Its dangerousness is generic to its function. It in fact appears in the record here that another auger equipped for greater protection potential was available to plaintiff’s grandfather. For reasons not apparent the particular machine in question was purchased instead. The risk of harm from the auger is readily apparent and the design aspect of the machine that makes it dangerous may in fact play a role in the user’s decision to purchase it. This factor is important since it bears heavily upon the question whether the auger is “unreasonably” dangerous, for liability is imposed only if the product is “unreasonably dangerous.” (Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182.) Illinois courts have not adopted a rule imposing absolute liability upon manufacturers for injuries occasioned by their products. This is particularly true in instances where the dangerousness of the machine or instrumentality is readily apparent. Our supreme court declared in Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill. 2d 456, 466-67, 343 N.E.2d 465, 471: “Reviewing the facts alleged in the complaint, we do not finid it was objectively reasonable for Hy-Gain, Rohn and Lurtz to expect a user of their products to be injured in the manner in which plaintiff was injured. As plaintiff admits, the danger of electricity is common knowledge. * * * Although comment / to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts recognizes that a failure to warn can make a product unreasonably dangerous, we conclude that a duty to warn is not required where the product is not defectively designed or manufactured, and where the possibility of injury results from a common propensity of the product which is open and obvious.” (Emphasis added.) The policy is apparent and expressed in the Genaust case (exposed electric power transmission lines); Winnett v. Winnett (forage wagon); Fanning v. LeMay, 38 Ill. 2d 209, 230 N.E.2d 182 (shoes slippery when wet); Pitts v. Basile, 35 Ill. 2d 49, 219 N.E.2d 472 (toy dart); Hancock v. Luetgert, 40 Ill. App. 3d 808, 353 N.E.2d 165 (sickle); Hagerman v. National Food Stores, Inc., 5 Ill. App. 3d 439, 283 N.E.2d 321 (vending machine with glass globe which broke when plaintiff fell into it); Maramba v. Neuman, 82 Ill. App. 2d 95, 227 N.E.2d 80 (boomerang); and many more. Under the guidance of these cases the trial court should have found, as a matter of law, that the auger, its dangerousness readily apparent and generic to its function, was not an unreasonably dangerous machine and that it was not objectively reasonable for defendant to expect that an injury would be incurred by the minor plaintiff, a nonuser bystander. Having so found the court should have directed a verdict for defendant at the close of all the evidence or entered judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict.