September 2011 Case Notes & Comments

“To improve is to change, to be perfect is to change often.” ~ Winston Churchill

MONTHLY QUIZ: Over a period of several years, though not contractually required to do so, Property Manager-Defendants gratuitously remove snow and ice from premises, including Tenant’s rear staircase. Caretaker-Plaintiff, who has been cooking and cleaning for Tenant for the last five months, slips and falls on open and obvious, natural accumulation of snow. Plaintiff argues that prior removal shows that Defendants voluntarily undertook a duty. While they concede that a party voluntarily removing snow owes a duty do so in a non-negligent manner, Defendants argue that they have no continuingduty to clear Tenant’s rear staircase. Do years of prior, consistent snow removal give rise to a voluntarily assumed duty? Who is right?  You be the judge.  (Answer below).

 

PRODUCT LIABILITY - DESIGN DEFECT: Motorists injured in a roll-over accident brought a state-court products liability action against automobile Manufacturer, alleging vehicle's defective design rendered it unstable. Manufacturer removed action to federal court. At the close of discovery, Plaintiffs had not designated an expert on the subject of the vehicle’s design. The trial court concluded that the suit could not proceed without expert testimony and granted Manufacturer summary judgment. To date, the Supreme Court of Illinois has not yet considered the issue of whether expert testimony is necessary in a design-defect suit involving a complex product, such as a car, where the plaintiff declined to produce expert evidence. Dismissal affirmed. Citing several Illinois appellate court opinions, the 7th Circuit held that “expert testimony is vital in design-defect suits when aspects of a product’s design or operation are outside the scope of lay knowledge.” Show v. Ford Motor Co., --F.3d--, 2011 WL 4350043 (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2011) COMPARE/CONTRAST:Jablonski v. Ford (below)

 

NEGLIGENCE - PRODUCT DESIGN: Plaintiff sues automobile Manufacturer alleging negligence in designing a product. At trial, Plaintiff presents evidence and expert testimony concerning possible alternative designs and statistics on various types of previous accidents. The Illinois Supreme clarified proper duty analysis in common law negligence action for a design defect and addressed the risk-utility test for determining duty. A manufacturer has a nondelegable duty to design a reasonably safe product. Setting out a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to the analysis, the high Court held that the question of reasonable care is resolved by whether hazardousness could have been foreseen at the time of manufacture and whether the risks inherent in a product design outweigh the benefit or utility of the product (i.e. the same test used in strict liability cases for determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous). Manufacturer presented evidence that it complied with governmental and industry standards in place at the time of manufacture, which, though not dispositive, were factors considered in determining that the evidence was insufficient to go to the jury on the issue of negligent design. Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 WL 4391179, 2011 IL 110096  (Sept. 22, 2011) 

  

SUBROGATION / WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: Driver rented car from Plaintiff-Rental Agency in Missouri and while on business trip in Kentucky, was involved in collision. Coworker-Passengers were injured in the collision and filed claims, which Plaintiff paid. Plaintiff then sued Driver for negligence and breach of the rental Contract, by which Driver was to indemnify and hold Plaintiff harmless for any losses arising out of the use of the car, including 3rd Party claims. Driver argued Plaintiff’s claimed rights to repayment were derivative of Coworker-Passengers’ claims and that the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”) barred actions against coworkers for injuries sustained in the course of employment due to a coworker’s negligence. See 820 ILCS 305/5(a). Plaintiff argued that its claims were not derivative (i.e. were for contractual indemnification, not subrogation) and that the Act was not relevant since no employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Coworker-Passengers, or Driver. The Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that the rental contract must be given an interpretation consistent with Illinois’ law and public policy; and, requiring Driver to repay for Coworkers’ injuries was at odds with the Act. Enterprise Leasing Company of St. Louis v. Hardin, 2011 WL 4000910, 2011 IL App (5th) 100201 (1st Dist. Sept. 8, 2011)

 

DIRECT ACTION AGAINST LIABILITY INSURERS: Injured Plaintiff sued out-of-state Defendant and Defendant’s liability Insurer for injuries suffered in an automobile accident in Wisconsin.  Wisconsin is a minority “direct action” state, allowing a negligence plaintiff to directly sue a negligence defendant’s liability insurer, in addition to or instead of suing the defendant, so long as the policy was “delivered... or on business operations in the state.”  Wisconsin courts had long held that direct action was only permissible when the policy was issued in Wisconsin or to a Wisconsin insured.  The Supreme Court has now expanded the traditional reading of the statute, allowing for direct action against any liability insurer “so long as the accident or injury occurs in this state.”  Any insurer can now be subject to a direct action, so long as the injury occurred in Wisconsin, regardless of whether the policy was issued in Wisconsin.  Casper v. American International South Insurance Company, 800 N.W.2d 880 (Wis. July 19, 2011).

 

ANSWER TO QUIZ: No, there is no voluntary undertaking here. Years of prior removal did not create a continuing duty to clear the stairs every time snow naturally accumulated. In Illinois, one who voluntarily renders services to another may be subject to liability to the 3rd person for physical harm if: (a) he increases the risk of such harm, (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the another to the 3rd person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the 3rd person upon the undertaking. Here, Defendants’ gratuitous removal did not increase the harm and no contract at issue required it. Further, Caretaker could not have relied on Defendants’ prior snow removal since she had only been working Tenant for five months and admitted she saw the snow before she slipped. Claims One v. Professional Property Management, 2011 IL App (2d) 101115 (Sept. 12, 2011)

Past Publications

2024

March 2024
January 2024

2023

December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
March 2023
February 2023

2022

December 2022
October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022

2021

December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021

2020

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020

2019

December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019

2018

December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

2017

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017

2016

December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016

2015

December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

2014

December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014

2013

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013

2012

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012

2011

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011

2010

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

2009

December 2009