Gillespie v. Edmier

2020 IL 125262

182 N.E.3d 54

450 Ill.Dec. 608

Dale GILLESPIE et al., Appellees,

v.Robert EDMIER et al.

(East Manufacturing Corporation, Appellant).

Docket No. 125262

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed December 3, 2020.

Rehearing denied January 25, 2021

Joshua G. Vincent and Kimberly A. Jansen, of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.

Michael W. Rathsack, of Law Offices of Michael W. Rathsack, and Nicholas J. Faklis and Michael C. Mead, of Faklis, Tallis & Mead, P.C., both of Chicago, for appellees.

Robert A. Carson and Mark D. Brookstein, of Gould & Ratner LLP, of Chicago, and Glen M. Darbyshire, of Bouhan Falligant LLP, of Savannah, Georgia, for amicus curiae Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Hugh C. Griffin, of Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

James P. Costello, of Costello, McMahon, Burke & Murphy, Ltd., and Bruce R. Pfaff, of Pfaff, Gill & Ports, Ltd., both of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

OPINION

JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court.

¶ 1 In this appeal, we address whether the circuit court of Cook County erroneously granted summary judgment under section 2-1005(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018)) in favor of defendant manufacturer, East Manufacturing Corporation (East Manufacturing), in a strict liability action brought by plaintiffs, Dale and Christine Gillespie. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of East Manufacturing and remanded for further proceedings. 2019 IL App (1st) 172549, 434 Ill.Dec. 504, 136 N.E.3d 1029. We allowed East Manufacturing's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). We now affirm the judgment of the appellate court and remand the cause for further proceedings.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff Dale Gillespie worked as a truck driver for Barge Terminal. On February 14, 2012, he was working on a dump trailer manufactured and sold by defendant East Manufacturing and leased by Barge Terminal from defendant Trail Quest, Inc. The dump trailer was loaded with mulch for a delivery. Using the front cast iron side steps, Gillespie climbed on top of the dump trailer and lowered himself into the trailer to rake and level the mulch. After leveling the mulch, he turned to climb down the trailer using the front side steps. Gillespie crawled to the front of the trailer, positioned his right knee on the aluminum cap, placed his left foot down on the first cast iron step, and attempted to place his right foot on the second step. At this point, his hands slid off the top of the trailer, and his left foot slipped, causing him to fall off the cast iron stairs. He landed on his feet and felt a sharp pain in his back. He immediately reported his injury to his supervisor before returning to work.

¶ 4 Dale and his wife Christine Gillespie filed suit against Robert Edmier, Thomas Edmier, and John Edmier (the owners and operators of Barge Terminal); Trail Quest; and East Manufacturing.¹ The Gillespies alleged, inter alia , that East Manufacturing is strictly liable for, and acted negligently in, designing, manufacturing, and selling a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. The Gillespies further alleged that the product lacked adequate safety features, that East Manufacturing failed to warn consumers about foreseeable dangers from unsafe modifications, and that the product did not undergo product testing for safety.

¶ 5 In a deposition, the Gillespies' expert, Gary Hutter, opined that the steps on the dump trailer were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Hutter explained that the spacing and width of the steps, as well as the lack of side rails on the dump trailer, did not comply with the recommended practices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the American National Standards Institute, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association.

¶ 6 East Manufacturing moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion, ruling that OSHA does not apply to trailers and that industry standards are not mandatory. The court also found that East Manufacturing's trailer met the industry custom and practice because East Manufacturing built the trailer pursuant to the specifications of the purchaser and the purchaser had the trailer modified by a third party who added a tarp cover and cap. The court further found that the third-party modifications demonstrated that the trailer was not unreasonably dangerous when it left East Manufacturing's control.

¶ 7 The Gillespies appealed, challenging, inter alia , the trial court's grant of summary judgment on their strict liability claim against East Manufacturing.² The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of East Manufacturing and remanded for further proceedings. 2019 IL App (1st) 172549, 434 Ill.Dec. 504, 136 N.E.3d 1029. The appellate court reasoned that the deposition testimony of Hutter and others was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the trailer was unreasonably dangerous.³ This court allowed East Manufacturing's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). We also allowed the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the Truck Trailer Manufactures Association, Inc., and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association to file amicus curiae briefs. Ill. S. Ct. R. 345 (eff. Sept. 20, 2010).

¶ 8 ANALYSIS

¶ 9 This matter comes for our review on the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant East Manufacturing. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2018); Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District , 2016 IL 117952, ¶ 20, 399 Ill.Dec. 422, 46 N.E.3d 741. When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we must construe the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits strictly against the movant. Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co. , 211 Ill. 2d 32, 43, 284 Ill.Dec. 302, 809 N.E.2d 1248 (2004). We review a motion for summary judgment in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Coleman , 2016 IL 117952, ¶ 20, 399 Ill.Dec. 422, 46 N.E.3d 741. A circuit court's order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo . Cohen v. Chicago Park District , 2017 IL 121800, ¶ 17, 422 Ill.Dec. 869, 104 N.E.3d 436.

¶ 10 East Manufacturing argues that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in its favor on the Gillespies' strict liability claim. It is well established that, to recover in a strict product liability action, a plaintiff must plead and prove that (1) the injury complained of resulted from a condition of the product, (2) the condition was unreasonably dangerous, and (3) the condition existed at the time the product left the manufacturer's control. Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co. , 231 Ill. 2d 516, 525, 327 Ill.Dec. 1, 901 N.E.2d 329 (2008). This court recognized in Mikolajczyk , that

"[a] product may be found to be unreasonably dangerous based on proof of any one of three conditions: a physical defect in the product itself, a defect in the product's design, or a failure of the manufacturer to warn of the danger or to instruct on the proper use of the product." Mikolajczyk , 231 Ill. 2d at 525, 327 Ill.Dec. 1, 901 N.E.2d 329.

¶ 11 A showing that the product is unreasonably dangerous in a strict liability claim, based on an alleged design defect, may be proved "by evidence of the availability and feasibility of alternate designs at the time of its manufacture, or that the design used did not conform with the design standards of the industry, design guidelines provided by an authoritative voluntary association, or design criteria set by legislation or governmental regulation." Anderson v. Hyster Co. , 74 Ill. 2d 364, 368, 24 Ill.Dec. 549, 385 N.E.2d 690 (1979). A product may be found unreasonably dangerous based on a design defect when the plaintiff presents evidence of an alternative design that is "economical, practical and effective." Kerns v. Engelke , 76 Ill. 2d 154, 162-63, 28 Ill.Dec. 500, 390 N.E.2d 859 (1979). Evidence of an alternative design introduces the question of feasibility because a manufacturer's product cannot be faulted when safer alternatives are not feasible. Mikolajczyk , 231 Ill. 2d at 526, 327 Ill.Dec. 1, 901 N.E.2d 329. Plaintiffs may demonstrate that a product was defectively designed by presenting evidence that the product fails to satisfy the "consumer-expectation test" or the "risk-utility test." Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp. , 224 Ill. 2d 247, 255, 309 Ill.Dec. 383, 864 N.E.2d 249 (2007). The determination of whether a product is defective and unreasonably dangerous is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury to consider. Korando v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. , 159 Ill. 2d 335, 344, 202 Ill.Dec. 284, 637 N.E.2d 1020 (1994).

¶ 12 On appeal before this court, East Manufacturing submits that summary judgment was proper under the risk-utility test. Under the risk-utility test, the utility of the design must be weighed against the risk of harm created, and if the likelihood and gravity of the harm outweigh the benefits and utilities of the product, the product is unreasonably dangerous. Calles , 224 Ill. 2d at 259, 309 Ill.Dec. 383, 864 N.E.2d 249. Courts may consider numerous factors, including the availability and feasibility of alternate designs at the time of manufacture or whether the design conformed with design standards of the industry, design guidelines provided by an authoritative voluntary association, or design criteria set by legislation or government regulation. Calles , 224 Ill. 2d at 263-64, 309 Ill.Dec. 383, 864 N.E.2d 249. Other factors that may also be relevant include

" ‘(1) the appearance and

...