Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mele v. Howmedica, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Mele v. Howmedica, Inc., 348 Ill. 2007Moreover, pr e-Blue, “Illinois courts have not limited the use of the consumer expectation test to cases in which everyday experience alone led to the conclusion the design was unsafe.” Mele, 348 Ill. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2007See People v. Brown, 169 Ill. 2d 94, 108 (1995) (issue raised for first time in reply brief is waived). 2007See People v. Brown, 169 Ill.2d 94, 108 , 214 Ill.Dec. 257 , 660 N.E.2d 964 (1995) (issue raised for first time in reply brief is waived). | 4 | 4 |
Miller v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc.green2 sentences2007Although plaintiff, under the pleading, might also have sought to prove the design of the [product] unreasonably dangerous by showing its risks outweighed its benefits, he decided not to do so"); Miller, 352 Ill.App.3d at 671 , 287 Ill.Dec. 416 , 815 N.E.2d 1219 (summary judgment on the plaintiff's strict liability claim was improper when genuine issue of material fact existed under the risk-utility test or under the consumer expectations test). 2007Although plaintiff, under the pleading, might also have sought to prove the design of the [product] unreasonably dangerous by showing its risks outweighed its benefits, he decided not to do so"); Miller, 352 Ill.App.3d at 671 , 287 Ill.Dec. 416 , 815 N.E.2d 1219 (summary judgment on the plaintiff's strict liability claim was improper when genuine issue of material fact existed under the risk-utility test or under the consumer expectations test). | 4 | 4 |
Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.green2 sentences2007Calles, 224 Ill. 2d at 255 , quoting Lamkin, 138 Ill. 2d at 529 . 2007Calles, 224 Ill.2d at 255, 256 , 309 Ill.Dec. 383 , 864 N.E.2d 249 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007However, according to defendants, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted the risk-utility test as the exclusive test for design defects of complex products in Blue v, Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill. 2d 78 (2005), and held that the consumer expectations test is applicable only to simple products posing open and obvious dangers. 2007However, according to defendants, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted the risk-utility test as the exclusive test for design defects of complex products in Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill.2d 78 , 293 Ill.Dec. 630 , 828 N.E.2d 1128 (2005), and *895 held that the consumer expectations test is applicable only to simple products posing open and obvious dangers. | 4 | 2006–2007 |
Lamkin v. Towner
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 529 . 2007Calles, 224 Ill. 2d at 255 , quoting Lamkin, 138 Ill. 2d at 529 . | 2 | 2007–2012 |
Rosburg v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2004The court approved the holding of Rosburg v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 181 Cal. App. 3d 726 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 299 (1986), where “[the] plaintiff claimed she was entitled to judgment under the consumer expectations test because her own testimony that she believed her breast implants would last a lifetime without leaking was the only lay evidence of what consumers expected. *** [T]he Court of Appeal ruled that breast implant performance is beyond common experience, and that expert testimony on what the consumer should expect was therefore relevant and admissible.” (Emphasis omitted.) 2004The court approved the holding of Rosburg v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 181 Cal. App. 3d 726 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 299 (1986), where “[the] plaintiff claimed she was entitled to judgment under the consumer expectations test because her own testimony that she believed her breast implants would last a lifetime without leaking was the only lay evidence of what consumers expected. *** [T]he Court of Appeal ruled that breast implant performance is beyond common experience, and that expert testimony on what the consumer should expect was therefore relevant and admissible.” (Emphasis omitted.) | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2004The court approved the holding of Rosburg v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 181 Cal. App. 3d 726 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 299 (1986), where “[the] plaintiff claimed she was entitled to judgment under the consumer expectations test because her own testimony that she believed her breast implants would last a lifetime without leaking was the only lay evidence of what consumers expected. *** [T]he Court of Appeal ruled that breast implant performance is beyond common experience, and that expert testimony on what the consumer should expect was therefore relevant and admissible.” (Emphasis omitted.) 2004The court approved the holding of Rosburg v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 181 Cal. App. 3d 726 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 299 (1986), where “[the] plaintiff claimed she was entitled to judgment under the consumer expectations test because her own testimony that she believed her breast implants would last a lifetime without leaking was the only lay evidence of what consumers expected. *** [T]he Court of Appeal ruled that breast implant performance is beyond common experience, and that expert testimony on what the consumer should expect was therefore relevant and admissible.” (Emphasis omitted.) | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2008I note also that defendants' instruction departs from the majority's possible formulation of the risk utility test (see 231 Ill.2d at 555 , 327 Ill.Dec. at 24, 901 N.E.2d at 352 ), which includes "`the nature and strength of consumer expectations regarding the product, including expectations arising from product portrayal and marketing.'" (Emphasis omitted.) 231 Ill.2d at 555 , 327 Ill.Dec. at 24, 901 N.E.2d at 352 , quoting Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2, Comment f, at 23 (1998). 2008I note also that defendants' instruction departs from the majority's possible formulation of the risk utility test (see 231 Ill.2d at 555 , 327 Ill.Dec. at 24, 901 N.E.2d at 352 ), which includes "`the nature and strength of consumer expectations regarding the product, including expectations arising from product portrayal and marketing.'" (Emphasis omitted.) 231 Ill.2d at 555 , 327 Ill.Dec. at 24, 901 N.E.2d at 352 , quoting Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2, Comment f, at 23 (1998). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2008In fact, defendant appears to have admitted as much to the appellate court (see 369 Ill.App.3d 78, 87 , 307 Ill.Dec. 201 , 859 N.E.2d 201 ) and contains no argument before this court that the consumer expectations test should be retained. 2008In fact, defendant appears to have admitted as much to the appellate court (see 369 Ill.App.3d 78, 87 , 307 Ill.Dec. 201 , 859 N.E.2d 201 ) and contains no argument before this court that the consumer expectations test should be retained. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.