Products Liability Law Reporter

The Illinois Supreme Court held that an expert’s opinion, referencing industry guidelines and OSHA protocol, was sufficient to create an issue of material fact in a case alleging a dump truck trailer was unreasonably dangerous.

Dale Gillespie worked as a truck driver for Barge Terminal. While working on a dump trailer manufactured and sold by East Manufacturing Corp. and leased to Barge Terminal by Trail Quest, Inc., he used the dump trailer’s cast iron side steps to climb on top of the trailer and lower himself into the trailer to rake and level the mulch it was carrying. His hand and foot slipped, and he fell off the stairs, allegedly suffering a back injury.

Gillespie and his wife sued East Manufacturing, Trail Quest, and the owners and operators of Barge Terminal. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that East Manufacturing was liable under strict liability and negligence theories for the design, manufacture, and sale of a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the dump trailer had inadequate safety features and that East Manufacturing had not conducted product safety testing and had failed to warn consumers about foreseeable dangers from unsafe modifications.

The plaintiffs’ expert Gary Hutter stated at deposition that the dump trailer’s steps were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Hutter opined that the steps’ spacing and width, combined with the trailer’s lack of side rails, violated OSHA regulations, the American National Standards Institute standards, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations, and the Truck Trailer Manufacturers’ Association standards.

East Manufacturing moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ strict liability claim. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that OSHA does not apply to trailers and that industry standards are not mandatory. The court also held that the trailer was not unreasonably dangerous when it left East Manufacturing’s control. An intermediate appellate court reversed, reasoning that Hutter’s testimony had created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the trailer was unreasonably dangerous.

Affirming the lower appellate court and remanding, the state high court noted that to recover under a strict liability theory, a plaintiff must prove that the alleged injury resulted from a condition of the product and that the condition was unreasonably dangerous and in existence at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control. The court added that proof that a product was unreasonably dangerous may be based on evidence that the product design did not conform to industry standards, legislative standards, or those of an authoritative association. Moreover, a plaintiff may prove a product was defectively designed by offering evidence that the product fails to satisfy the consumer expectation test or the risk utility test, which weighs the utility of a product’s design against the risk of harm that is created.

The court found that Hutter had referenced the OSHA and other protocols not as substantive evidence, but to explain the basis for his expert opinion. Under relevant case law, the court said, an expert must be allowed to testify regarding the basis for his or her opinion, which is valid only to the extent that the underlying basis for it is also valid. Hutter’s testimony about the spacing and width of the trailer’s steps and lack of side rails support his opinion that East Manufacturing had designed steps that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, the court said. Thus, Hutter’s testimony had created a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant’s dump trailer was unreasonably dangerous.

Citation: Gillespie v. Edmier, 2020 Ill. 125262 (Ill. Dec. 3, 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Nicholas Faklis, AAJ member Michael Mead, and Michael Rathsack, all of Chicago.