838 F. Supp. 2d 816
C.D. Ill.2012Background
- Plaintiff Ronald Cappellano underwent left hip replacement on Oct 14, 2004 with a Profemur modular neck prosthesis (model PHAO-1244).
- The neck was titanium alloy and the neck-stem junction used an oblong slot with micromovements, enabling modularity.
- Plaintiff was overweight (260–290 pounds) and later weight 260 pounds at revision, contributing to prosthesis loads.
- On Mar 21, 2008, the prosthesis neck failed; revision surgery occurred Mar 25, 2008, with removal of the device.
- Plaintiff signed a consent form acknowledging risks and possible alternative treatments; Defendants’ products, inserts, and literature warned of risks and finite service life.
- Defendants moved to dismiss/summary-judgment; expert reports and articles were submitted illustrating design vs. manufacturing theories and industry context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim survives. | Plaintiff alleges unreasonabl[e] danger due to design, not warning. | Plaintiffs concede no failure-to-warn claim; dismissal warranted. | Granted as to failure-to-warn claim. |
| Whether Plaintiff's manufacturing defect claim survives. | A design/manufacturing defect exists; expert opinions support manufacturing defect. | No evidence of manufacturing defect; experts equivocal or altered opinions. | Summary judgment for Defendants on manufacturing defect claim. |
| Whether Plaintiff's design defect claim can survive under risk-utility or consumer-expectation tests. | Modularity caused defect; alternative monolithic design could reduce risk; risk-utility supports plaintiff. | Plaintiff failed to prove a balancing of risks/benefits; no feasible, non-harmful alternative shown. | Plaintiff’s design defect claim fails; court grants summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Whether evidence supports submitting risk-utility analysis to a jury given the claimed design defect. | Under Jablonski, initial balancing should proceed with available factors. | Insufficient evidence to balance risks vs. benefits; no admissible comparative design data. | Threshold risk-utility analysis not satisfied; no jury question on design defect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill.2d 247 (Ill. 2007) (three liability routes; manufacturing, design, or failure-to-warn; warning claim dismissed in this case)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill.2d 516 (Ill. 2008) (established risk-utility vs consumer-expectation for design defects)
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 353 Ill.Dec. 327, 955 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. 2011) (nonexhaustive risk-utility factors and threshold balancing for design defects)
- Mele v. Howmedica, Inc., 348 Ill.App.3d 1, 283 Ill.Dec. 738, 808 N.E.2d 1026 (Ill. 2004) (consumer-expectation test limits for complex devices; not a simple-product case)
- Show v. Ford Motor Co., 659 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2011) (consumer-expectation is part of risk-utility analysis for complex products)