Court Opinion

ID: 9712888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:02:13.689181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:15.057407
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: I join in the result reached by the majority. However, I write separately to distance myself from the majority’s analysis and its forays into dicta. The present case is a defective product design case in which plaintiff seeks recovery on a negligence theory of liability. The majority opinion contains sweeping pronouncements effecting changes not only with respect to products liability cases based on a negligence theory but also products liability cases based upon strict liability. As the majority opinion notes, “any claim by Browning that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence as to the standard of care is foreclosed at this point.” 215 Ill. 2d at 100. As the majority opinion also notes, Browning “does not make any independent claim that the jury’s verdict should be set aside as a matter of law based on the lack of a duty or that the evidence was insufficient to prove plaintiffs claim or sustain his cause of action.” 215 Ill. 2d at 100-01. Thus, like Justice Fitzgerald I believe this case is not the appropriate forum to decide whether the risk-utility test is applicable in a negligence design defect case. I also believe that it is unnecessary to determine in this case whether the risk-utility test is a part of a duty analysis in a defective product design case. Accordingly, I join in Justice Fitzgerald’s special concurrence. Furthermore, I agree with Justice Kilbride that the majority’s discussion of the simple machine exception to the risk-utility test is dicta. If the risk-utility test does not apply to negligence cases, as the majority holds, the simple machine exception to the risk-utility test is also inapplicable. Consequently, I join in that portion of Justice Kilbride’s partial concurrence and partial dissent. In the interest of providing clarification to the bench and bar, I note further that only three members of this court support the conclusion, expressed in the majority opinion, that the risk-utility test does not apply in a negligence design defect case. Because this conclusion lacks the support of a majority of the members of this court, it is not binding authority.