Court Opinion

ID: 9862347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:07:30.456458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:07.233723
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WELCH, dissenting: The majority employs many often-used rules of law, derived from section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. I cannot take issue with this language, as it has become a well-established part of the rhetoric of strict products liability. But in applying these generalities to the facts of this case, the majority has reached a result which, in effect, substitutes the foreseeability of the accident for the unreasonably dangerous nature of the product as the outer limit of liability. Because this is an unprecedented and unrealistic expansion of the law of products liability, I must dissent from the decision of the majority. In its opinion, the majority notes that the plaintiff must show that the product was unreasonably dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. To me, this involves two inquiries: first, was the plaintiff using the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and second, was the product unreasonably dangerous for that use. In this case, the majority confines itself to the first of these questions when it states that “the real inquiry involves whether plaintiff was acting in a reasonably foreseeable manner in attempting to repair the wheel cover himself and whether the method he utilized was reasonably foreseeable.” (109 Ill. App. 3d 11, 17, 440 N.E.2d 180, 185.) It answers both foreseeability questions in the affirmative, and thus finds liability. I, too, agree that it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would work on the wheel cover. In fact, there are virtually no automotive repairs which I cannot imagine some consumer, somewhere, attempting at home. It is common knowledge that, in addition to spoke kits, other parts are available individually from dealers and independent suppliers. An entire car can be built, rebuilt or repaired with these parts, and in these times it is foreseeable that more people will decide to undertake these tasks themselves. Yet, it is the logical conclusion to the reasoning of the majority that if someone is cut while performing home auto repairs, of whatever sort, then he can recover from the manufacturer of the car. The majority attempts to disclaim these obvious results of its decision by stating that “there are many sharp edges on the various parts of an automobile that could not reasonably be classified as unreasonably dangerous considering their location and the unlikelihood that someone not a mechanic would come in contact with them.” (109 Ill. App. 3d 11, 17, 440 N.E.2d 180, 185.) But this so-called limitation of the holding is actually no limitation at all. If foreseeability is the boundary of liability, then, as I have noted above, virtually any car-repair injury, being reasonably foreseeable, is actionable. If the location of the sharp edge is the test, then what about a sharp edge near the carburetor? Behind the dashboard? In the distributor? Under the valve covers? The majority provides no reason that a sharp edge in these locations, all of which are common trouble spots, would not give rise to the manufacturer’s liability, while an injury received after the removal and disassembly of the wheel cover, is actionable. I fail to detect any obvious difference between the former locations and the latter, nor does the majority suggest any. The flaw with the majority’s opinion is that it unsuccessfully attempts to confine its result to “foreseeable” repairs, whatever they may be, while ignoring the very limitation which section 402A itself places on liability — namely, that the product be unreasonably dangerous. Whether a product may be considered to be unreasonably dangerous is a question of policy, involving such factors as “(1) the usefulness and desirability of the product, (2) the availability of other and safer products to meet the same need, (3) the likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness, (4) the obviousness of the danger, (5) common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger, particularly for established products, (6) the avoidability of injury by care in use of the product, including the effect of instructions or warnings, and (7) the ability to eliminate the danger without seriously impairing the usefulness of the product or making it unduly expensive.” (63 Am. Jur. 2d, Products Liability sec. 132 (1972).) In finding liability because the plaintiff’s repairs were reasonably foreseeable, the majority has stopped short of discussing these issues and thus fails to meet the policy objections which the appellants raise to challenge the judgment against them. Moreover, by analyzing only the plaintiff’s conduct, the majority also departs from the fundamental tenet of products liability law that the focus in such a case should be on the product itself. Kerns v. Engelke (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 154, 390 N.E.2d 859. Simply stated, the broad question posed by this case is what standard of performance is to be demanded from an auto manufacturer. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that his Cadillac was defective because the edges were sharp in the area under the center disc of the wheel cover, because no warning was provided to protect the consumer from that hazard, and because no instructions were given. If, as the majority holds, these defects are actionable, then a car is reasonably safe only if virtually every potentially sharp edge is trimmed with jewelry-like precision, if the car is bedecked with warning stickers for each sharp edge which could remain, and if a service manual is provided to the buyer. I cannot believe that a car which falls short of these standards is “unreasonably dangerous.” An examination of the relevant case law reveals more realistic guidelines. Most of the reported decisions in which a plaintiff has recovered damages for a defective automobile have involved the inability of the car to serve its primary function — transportation. Engine, transmission, brake, and steering failure are typical subjects of these cases. (Annot., 78 A.L.R.2d 460 (1961); R. M. Goodman, Automobile Design Liability (1970, Supps. 1971 — 1977, 1981).) Such a defect is not presented here. Instead, we are faced with a cutting surface which injured the plaintiff only when he acted to repair his car on his own. It has been held that a plaintiff who is cut on a sharp edge in the passenger compartment of a car may recover damages for his injuries. (Ford Motor Co. v. Zahn (8th Cir. 1959), 265 F.2d 729 (passenger thrown into jagged edge on ashtray in 1956 Ford).) In certain situations, it has been held that one who collides with a sharp edge on the exterior of a car is also entitled to recover damages. (Compare Green v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (6th Cir. 1973), 485 F.2d 430 (girl’s finger severed in body vent of parked 1956 microbus while she was playing ball in its vicinity), and Passwaters v. General Motors Corp. (8th Cir. 1972), 454 F.2d 1270 (motorcyclist cut on decorative flippers on wheel cover during collision with 1964 Buick), with Schneider v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (8th Cir. 1968), 401 F.2d 549 (car owner cut on wing vent window of 1960 Valiant while trying to look into car in dark garage to see if keys were in it), Hatch v. Ford Motor Co. (1958), 163 Cal. App. 2d 393, 329 P.2d 605 (child walked into radiator ornament on 1939 Ford), Kahn v. Chrysler Corp. (S.D. Tex. 1963), 221 F. Supp. 677 (child rode bicycle into tailfin of 1957 Dodge).) Similarly, plaintiffs who have been cut while performing what can best be described as “routine maintenance” have established the liability of the manufacturer. (Kikis v. Ford Motor Co. (Fla. App. 1980), 386 So. 2d 306, rev’d (Fla. 1981), 401 So. 2d 1341, on remand (Fla. App. 1981), 405 So. 2d 1061 (owner cut on hole of wheel cover while removing it to change tire); Vlahovich v. Betts Machine Co. (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 506, 260 N.E.2d 230 (truck driver cut by plastic lens of clearance light which shattered while he was changing a bulb). See also Pouncey v. Ford Motor Co. (5th Cir. 1972), 464 F.2d 957 (car owner cut by blade which broke off from radiator fan while owner was adding anti-freeze to car).) Also, I might add that the plaintiff in Tibbetts v. Ford Motor Co. (1976), 4 Mass. App. 738, 358 N.E.2d 460, was attempting to perform such routine maintenance when he was injured, namely, changing a tire. However, he sought to remove the wheel cover by inserting his bare hand into the decorative slots of the cover and pulling it, instead of trying to pry the cover loose. (Compare Kikis v. Ford Motor Co.) Tibbetts should property be thought of as an example of a misused product. That case is not distinguishable from the present case, as the majority claims, because it was a negligence action, since the court specifically answered the question of whether the wheel cover was defective, which is a prerequisite to proving a case either in negligence or in strict liability. All of the cases discussed above limit liability to those plaintiffs who were automobile passengers, those who collided with the automobiles, and those who were performing routine maintenance such as changing tires, light bulbs and filters or adding vital fluids. It is reasonable to expect a manufacturer to trim those edges which could come in contact with someone engaging in these common activities. But to require that all surfaces between the center crest piece and the retaining disc of the wheel cover be completely safe for human contact would effectively require all surfaces anywhere in the car to be machined to perfection. Nor does Elliott v. General Motors Corp. (7th Cir. 1961), 296 F.2d 125, justify such a result. There, the plaintiff was a mechanic who was employed to replace the piston rings on a Chevrolet. While he lay on his back underneath the car with his hand extended through an opening in a splash shield under the front end of the car, removing fan pulley bolts and loosening connecting rod bolts with a socket wrench, his hand slipped from the wrench, throwing his right wrist against a sharp edge on the shield. Although replacing the piston rings is certainty not routine maintenance, this case is of no assistance to the plaintiff, because the opening in the shield was designed specifically to permit mechanics to gain access to the engine compartment. There is no proof that the opening under the wheel cover of the plaintiffs Cadillac was intended to provide any sort of access for repair work, despite the plaintiffs reference in his complaint to this space as an “access area.” In fact, the only way that the sharp edge could be exposed was for the plaintiff to remove the wheel cover and then remove the five bolts in the wheel cover in order to disassemble it. The majority’s decision to hold the defendants liable for failure to correct a sharp edge in an opening underneath the center crest piece of the wheel cover means that auto manufacturers must trim all possibly sharp edges, of glass, plastic, or metal, wherever they are located, so as to make the car as safe as a child’s toy. Such a standard of perfection in workmanship, while a commendable goal, cannot be the test of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. Instead, consideration of the relevant policy issues and cases discussed above shows that a sharp edge on a car is not unreasonably dangerous unless it is likely to come in contact with a passenger, with someone who collides with the vehicle, or with someone who performs routine maintenance on the car. Such an edge would also be unreasonably dangerous if it were on a part designed as an access area. (Elliott.) Since none of these descriptions applies to the metal edge in question, there can be no reasonable inference that the automobile was unreasonably dangerous (Rockett v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 217, 334 N.E.2d 764), and therefore the court erred in submitting this case to the jury.