Skip to Content

J&B Blog Archives

Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Employee’s Direct Action Against Employer for Claimed Asbestos Related Illness

In a much anticipated opinion, on November 4, 2015 the Illinois Supreme Court found that the provisions of Illinois’ Workers’ Compensation Act and the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (“the Acts”) barred an employee from bringing a direct civil action against his employer for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos. In Folta v. Ferro Engineering,   Continue Reading »

First District Illinois Appellate Court Allows For Direct Common-Law Action Against Employer For Asbestos-Related Disease

On June 27, 2014, in a case of first impression, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, delivered a decision allowing an employee to sue his employer outside of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (“the Acts”) where the employee first learned of his injury after the expiration of the statute of   Continue Reading »

ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT REVERSES TRIAL COURT: MADISON COUNTY ASBESTOS CASE DOES NOT BELONG IN ILLINOIS

In a decision that may have a significant impact upon asbestos litigation in Madison County, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court has recently overturned a trial court ruling against defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  While there have been similar decisions in the Fifth District in the past, no   Continue Reading »

JURISDICTION OVER A FOREIGN DEFENDANT -- RECENT ILLINOIS DECISION WILL IMPACT COMPONENT PARTS MANUFACTURERS

I.  Synopsis Illinois Supreme Court in Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909 (April 18, 2013) finds specific jurisdiction over a foreign component part manufacturer, finding that its products were part of the marketing plan of the seller’s product.  What does this mean for component part manufacturers that have integrated marketing plans with the seller’s product?   Continue Reading »

PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE EVALUATION AND TRIAL STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS - Part Three

In the final installment of his in-depth analysis of case evaluation and trial strategy, Johnson & Bell Shareholder, Charles P. Rantis, focuses on the sole proximate cause argument in product liability cases – withdrawing all affirmative defenses and trying the case on damages alone. (Read Part One and Part Two) Trial Strategy: Withdrawal of Affirmative Defenses   Continue Reading »

PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE EVALUATION AND TRIAL STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS – Part Two

Following up his analysis of case evaluation and trial strategy in Part One of his three-part series, Johnson & Bell Shareholder, Charles P. Rantis, explores the potential benefits and challenges of using plaintiff’s contributory fault defenses in product liability cases. (Part Three) Trial Strategy: Defense Based on Plaintiff’s Contributory Fault The extent to which plaintiff’s   Continue Reading »

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT PROVIDES (SOME) CLARITY ON START OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LOSSES BY INVESTORS

Determining the start date for any statute of limitations can be difficult.  This is particularly true in cases of alleged financial exploitation or fraud.  In such cases, the damages themselves can often be difficult to determine, let alone pinpointing the moment in time when they began.  In the recentKhan v. Deutsche Bank AG decision, the Supreme   Continue Reading »

THE CHALLENGES OF LEGACY EQUIPMENT

American and European product manufacturers face many challenges operating in the international marketplace.  Foremost is the product liability lawsuit, which can challenge a manufacturer’s every decision, from the design and development stage, through sale of the product, and even for an undefined period thereafter.  A manufacturer’s potential liability for legacy equipment, i.e., older or prior   Continue Reading »

Product Liability Case Evaluation and Trial Strategy Considerations -- Part One

In the first of three installments of his in-depth analysis of case evaluation and trial strategy, Johnson & Bell Shareholder, Charles P. Rantis, explores the critical importance of weighing intangible factors of a given case.  He argues that these factors can impact defense counsel’s trial strategy and tactics as much as a mathematical methodology assessment of   Continue Reading »

PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS' POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR USERS' ALTERATIONS OF THE PRODUCT

Under Illinois law, a manufacturer’s liability for an allegedly defective product is determined by the condition of the product at the time that it left the manufacturer’s possession and control. Augenstine v. Dico Co., 135 Ill.App.3d 273, 481 N.E.2d 1225 (1985). Defects existing in the product at the time it leaves the manufacturer’s possession and   Continue Reading »

THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CONFIRMS THE REQUIREMENT FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY UNDER THE "CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS" TESTS

A recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant-manufacturer when the plaintiffs failed to present expert testimony in support of their design defect case, prosecuted under the “Consumer Expectations” test. In Show v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 U.S.   Continue Reading »

JOHNSON & BELL NEWS OF NOTE

Practice group co-chair and shareholder Kevin G. Owens recently presided as Chairman of the ALFA International Product Liability Practice Group at the group’s seminar in Nashville, Tennessee.  The program, “Is the Next Verse the Same as the First…or Has the Tune Changed,” presented a variety of timely topics, including Enforcement of Indemnity Agreements with Foreign   Continue Reading »

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION ON FEDERAL PREEMPTION AIDS GENERIC DRUG MANUFACTURERS

On June 23, 2011, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that federal statutes and FDA regulations governing the labeling of generic drugs preempt state law tort claims against generic drug manufacturers for failure to provide adequate warning labels.  In Pliva, Inc., v. Mensing the court determined that it was impossible for   Continue Reading »

THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT EXAMINES THE RISK-UTILITY TEST IN DESIGN DEFECT CASES

A recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling of major significance examines the risk-utility test as a method of proof in product liability cases premised on a design-defect theory.  The holding in the case, which includes a rejection of a post-sale duty to warn, merits the special attention of the product liability defense bar. Jablonski v. Ford Motor   Continue Reading »

RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON PERSONAL JURISDICTION BENEFIT FOREIGN PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS

The first step in any litigation involving a corporate defendant that is foreign to the selected forum is determining whether the court can exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.  There are two different types of personal jurisdiction that a court can exercise over a defendant – general and specific.  A state court may assert general jurisdiction   Continue Reading »

SEVENTH CIRCUIT BARS PLAINTIFFS LAST MINUTE CHANGE IN THEORY OF PRODUCTS CASE

In Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc., et al., 635 F.3rd 870 (2011), plaintiff filed a strict product liability lawsuit arising out of injuries allegedly sustained while the plaintiff was descending the steps of her recreational vehicle.  Throughout the course of the litigation, plaintiff had maintained that it was a step controller, installed on the vehicle, which   Continue Reading »

"LEGACY" EQUIPMENT - WHAT IS THE MACHINE MANUFACTURER'S DUTY ONCE THE MACHINE LEAVES THE PLANT?

The answer to the question: “what is a product manufacturer’s duty” relative to its products once they leave the plant, is not one that is easily answered.  In Illinois, a manufacturer has no duty to issue post-sale warnings or to retrofit its products to remedy defects first discovered after a product has left its control.  To the   Continue Reading »

SUPREME COURT FURTHER ERODES FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE

In the recent case of Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, 562 U.S.__(2011), the United States Supreme Court has held that the 1989 version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208) giving vehicle manufacturers a choice to install either a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt in a rear inner seat of a motor   Continue Reading »

Johnson and Bell

Johnson and Bell