Illinois Supreme Court Applies Risk-Utility Analysis In Negligent Design Case And Refuses To Expand A Manufacturer's Postsale Duty To Warn In Reversal Of $43 Million Jury Verdict In Exploding Gas Tank Accident Case

In a significant victory for product manufacturers, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a $43 million jury verdict against defendant Ford Motor Company in a case involving a fatal accident in which the fuel tank of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car exploded. The court held that a defendant's duty in a negligent design case is determined by application of the risk-utility test and that, as a matter of public policy, a manufacturer "is not required to guard against every conceivable risk, regardless of the degree of harm." Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 955 N.E.2d 1138, 1157 (Ill. 2011). The court refused to expand postsale duties beyond those currently required by Illinois law and held that a manufacturer "is under no duty to issue postsale warnings or to retrofit its products to remedy defects first discovered after a product has left its control." See id. at 1160 (citing Modelski v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., 302 Ill.App.3d 879, 890, 236 Ill.Dec. 394, 707 N.E.2d 239 (1999)).

John and Dora Jablonski were stopped at a stop sign in their 1993 Lincoln Town Car in 2003 when another car struck the Jablonskis' car at between 55 and 65 mph. As a result of the crash, a large pipe wrench in the trunk of the Town Car penetrated the trunk and punctured the back of the car's fuel tank. The car burst into flames, causing John's death and Dora's severe burns. See Jablonski, 955 N.E.2d at 1142. Plaintiffs brought suit in the Circuit Court of Madison County against Ford Motor Company, alleging negligent design of the 1993 Town Car's fuel tank and willful and wanton conduct, seeking punitive damages.

Plaintiffs abandoned their strict liability claims after the close of evidence. The case was presented to the jury on several theories of negligent design and willful and wanton conduct, including (1) failing to locate the vertical-behind-the-axle fuel tank either over-the-axle or forward-of-the-axle, (2) failing to shield the fuel tank to prevent punctures by contents in the trunk, and (3) failing to warn of the risk of trunk contents puncturing the fuel tank. The jury was also presented with a fourth theory that had not been pled, that Ford failed to inform the Jablonskis of certain remedial measures taken by Ford after the manufacture of the vehicle, but prior to the accident. Jablonski, 955 N.E.2d at 1142- 43. The jury returned a general verdict awarding a total of $28 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages. Jablonski, 955 N.W.2d at 1142. The appellate court affirmed.

In a 5-0 opinion by Justice Theis, the Supreme Court clarified the duty analysis in negligent product design cases and adopted the risk-utility analysis, an analysis typically used to determine whether a product is unreasonably dangerous in a strict liability claim. The court explained that "the key question in a negligent-design case is whether the manufacturer exercised reasonable care in designing the product." Jablonski, 955 N.W.2d at 1154 (citing Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp, 224 Ill.2d 247, 270, 309 Ill.Dec. 383, 864 N.E.2d 249 (2007)), and this exercise of reasonable care "encompasses a balancing of the risks...