Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC
89 N.E.3d 944
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Cassidy was injured when a flexible bulk container ripped and a stacked container fell on him; he sued China Vitamins (distributor), Taihua Group (manufacturer), and others for strict and negligent product liability.
- China Vitamins identified Taihua Group as the manufacturer and moved for dismissal under the pre-1995 version of 735 ILCS 5/2-621 (seller’s exception); the trial court dismissed strict and negligent strict-liability claims against China Vitamins without prejudice in 2012 and default was entered against Taihua Group for over $9 million.
- Cassidy obtained a default judgment against Taihua Group but has been unable to collect; efforts to discover and execute against assets (including third-party citations) were unsuccessful and some attempts were quashed for service defects.
- In 2015 Cassidy moved to reinstate China Vitamins under §2-621(b)(4), arguing the manufacturer is unable to satisfy the judgment (foreign manufacturer in China, U.S. judgments allegedly unenforceable there); the trial court denied reinstatement and found the order final and appealable.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the trial court erred in denying reinstatement proceedings under §2-621(b)(4) because that subsection encompasses judgment‑proof manufacturers (not limited to bankrupt or nonexistent ones) and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Taihua Group is unable to satisfy the judgment.
- The court also held the trial court improperly dismissed Cassidy’s negligent product-liability claim against China Vitamins because the pre-1995 §2-621 applies only to strict liability claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2-621(b)(4) allows reinstatement when the manufacturer is "unable to satisfy any judgment" because plaintiff cannot collect from a foreign manufacturer | Cassidy: §2-621(b)(4) should permit reinstatement when action against manufacturer is "unavailable/fruitless" (e.g., Chinese courts won't enforce U.S. state judgments) | China Vitamins/trial court: §2-621(b)(4) requires manufacturer be bankrupt or non-existent; mere difficulty enforcing a judgment abroad is insufficient | Reversed and remanded: §2-621(b)(4) covers judgment‑proof manufacturers (insolvent or lacking assets within jurisdiction); plaintiff may attempt to prove Taihua Group cannot satisfy the judgment |
| Proper meaning/scope of phrase "unable to satisfy any judgment" in §2-621(b)(4) | Cassidy: phrase should include foreign manufacturers beyond reach of Illinois courts (practical inability to collect) | China Vitamins: phrase requires actual inability (bankrupt/nonexistent) to satisfy judgment | Court: phrase equates to judgment‑proof/execution‑proof (ordinary meaning); not limited to bankruptcy or nonexistence; focus is whether manufacturer can satisfy judgment, not merely collection difficulty |
| Whether plaintiff must exhaust all collection remedies before seeking reinstatement | Cassidy: exhaustion unnecessary; statute lets court determine inability to satisfy judgment | China Vitamins: plaintiff’s collection failures do not show inability of manufacturer to satisfy judgment | Court: plaintiff need not exhaust every remedy; court should determine inability to satisfy as a factual matter and plaintiff must present competent evidence; remand for such factual inquiry |
| Whether §2-621 dismissal can reach negligent product-liability claims | Cassidy: negligent claim should remain against China Vitamins | China Vitamins: dismissal applied to product claims | Court: reversed dismissal of negligent claim—pre-1995 §2-621 applies only to strict liability, not negligence; negligent claim reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Kellerman v. Crowe, 119 Ill. 2d 111 (discusses finality of §2-621 dismissals and reinstatement mechanism)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 (elements of strict product liability)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (holding 1995 Tort Reform Act unconstitutional, restoring pre-1995 §2-621)
- Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp., 97 Ill. 2d 195 (rationale for imposing strict liability on distribution-chain defendants)
- Thomas v. Unique Food Equipment, Inc., 182 Ill. App. 3d 278 (purpose of seller’s exception and allocation of loss)
- Link v. Venture Stores, Inc., 286 Ill. App. 3d 977 (pre-1995 §2-621 does not apply to negligence claims)