defective design claim in Illinois

2021Assuming for the sake of argument that the dismissal order did not bar plaintiff from raising a defective-design claim, we nonetheless agree with defendants that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action based on negligent design. ¶ 13 Defendants correctly argue that a plaintiff “cannot simply write the words ‘knew or should have known’ in a complaint and survive a § 2-615 motion to dismiss.” See Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662, ¶¶ 26-27 ; Dennis v. Pace Suburban Bus Service, 2014 IL App (1st) 132397, ¶ 25 ; Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co., 2

2020Assuming for the sake of argument that the dismissal order did not bar plaintiff from raising a defective-design claim, we nonetheless agree with defendants that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action based on negligent design. ¶ 13 Defendants correctly argue that a plaintiff “cannot simply write the words ‘knew or should have known’ in a complaint and survive a § 2-615 motion to dismiss.” See Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662, ¶¶ 26-27 ; Dennis v. Pace Suburban Bus Service, 2014 IL App (1st) 132397, ¶ 25 ; Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co., 2

2021A defective-design claim is based on negligence, and “[a]s in any negligence action, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, an injury that was proximately caused by that breach, and damages.” Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096, ¶ 82 .

2020A defective-design claim is based on negligence, and “[a]s in any negligence action, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, an injury that was proximately caused by that breach, and damages.” Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096, ¶ 82 .

2021Assuming for the sake of argument that the dismissal order did not bar plaintiff from raising a defective-design claim, we nonetheless agree with defendants that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action based on negligent design. ¶ 13 Defendants correctly argue that a plaintiff “cannot simply write the words ‘knew or should have known’ in a complaint and survive a § 2-615 motion to dismiss.” See Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662, ¶¶ 26-27 ; Dennis v. Pace Suburban Bus Service, 2014 IL App (1st) 132397, ¶ 25 ; Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co., 2

2020Assuming for the sake of argument that the dismissal order did not bar plaintiff from raising a defective-design claim, we nonetheless agree with defendants that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action based on negligent design. ¶ 13 Defendants correctly argue that a plaintiff “cannot simply write the words ‘knew or should have known’ in a complaint and survive a § 2-615 motion to dismiss.” See Simpkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 IL 110662, ¶¶ 26-27 ; Dennis v. Pace Suburban Bus Service, 2014 IL App (1st) 132397, ¶ 25 ; Mitchell v. Norman James Construction Co., 2

2007Under Calles, accepted factors to be considered when engaging in a risk-utility analysis are: “ ‘(1) The usefulness and desirability of the product - its utility to the user and to the public as a whole. (2) The safety aspects of the product - the likelihood that it will cause injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury. (3) The availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe. (4) The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility. (5) The

2007Under Calles, accepted factors to be considered when engaging in a risk-utility analysis are: “ ‘(1) The usefulness and desirability of the product — its utility to the user and to the public as a whole. (2) The safety aspects of the product — the likelihood that it will cause injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury. (3) The availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe. (4) The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility. (5) The

2007Risk-Utility Test Under the risk-utility test, a plaintiff may establish a defective-design claim “ ‘by introducing evidence that the product’s design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to prove that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such designs.’ ” Hansen, 198 Ill. 2d at 433, quoting Lamkin, 138 Ill. 2d at 529 .

2007Risk-Utility Test Under the risk-utility test, a plaintiff may establish a defective-design claim “ ‘by introducing evidence that the product’s design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to prove that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such designs.’ ” Hansen, 198 Ill. 2d at 433 , quoting Lamkin, 138 Ill. 2d at 529 .

2019He further asserts that more recent federal case law dictates that his claim is not precluded by the LIA. ¶ 55 Union Pacific relies heavily on Waymire, 218 F.3d at 776-77 , wherein the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that negligence claims under the FELA that are directly covered by an act similar to the LIA, the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (FRSA) ( 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq. (2000)), which regulates railroad safety, were precluded.

2007Risk-Utility Test Under the risk-utility test, a plaintiff may establish a defective-design claim “ ‘by introducing evidence that the product’s design proximately caused his injury and the defendant fails to prove that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such designs.’ ” Hansen, 198 Ill. 2d at 433 , quoting Lamkin, 138 Ill. 2d at 529 .