Gillespie v. Edmier, 182 N.E.3d 54

On Feb. 14, 2012, Dale Gillespie fell from cast-iron steps on an East Manufacturing dump trailer while unloading mulch and was injured.
Gillespies sued East Manufacturing (and others) asserting strict product liability and negligence for a defectively designed step/ladder system and inadequate warnings.
Plaintiffs’ expert, Gary Hutter, testified that step spacing/width and lack of side rails conflicted with OSHA, ANSI, FMCSR, and TTMA recommendations and identified safer measurements and examples.
The circuit court granted East Manufacturing summary judgment, finding the listed standards inapplicable/ non-mandatory and that purchaser specifications and third-party modifications (tarp/cap) showed the trailer left manufacturer control and was not unreasonably dangerous.
The appellate court reversed, holding Hutter’s testimony created a genuine factual dispute; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and remanded for further proceedings, holding that an expert may rely on such standards to explain the basis of his opinion and that summary judgment was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper on strict product-liability (design defect) claim	Hutter’s deposition showing nonconforming dimensions and feasible safer alternatives creates a genuine factual issue	Trailer complied with purchaser specs; third-party modifications and industry practice show it was not unreasonably dangerous when it left manufacturer	Reversed circuit court; expert testimony created a triable issue; summary judgment improper
Whether an expert may rely on OSHA/ANSI/FMCSR/TTMA standards to form/explain the basis of an opinion at summary-judgment stage	Experts may use such standards to explain the basis for their opinions even if the standards are not admitted substantively	Standards are inapplicable or non-binding to this trailer, so reliance is irrelevant or improper	Court: experts may rely on those sources to explain opinion basis; admissibility of the standards as substantive evidence is a separate issue for later proceedings
Whether industry custom/third-party modifications defeat strict-liability/design-defect proof	Custom/specifications do not resolve whether design was unreasonably dangerous; expert evidence can show defect despite purchaser specs	Compliance with purchaser specs and common industry practice means no defect when product left manufacturer	Court found genuine factual disputes; summary judgment on that basis was improper

Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 (2008) (elements and proof methods for strict product liability; consumer-expectation and risk-utility tests)
Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247 (2007) (risk-utility and factors for design-defect analysis)
Anderson v. Hyster Co., 74 Ill. 2d 364 (1979) (design defect may be shown by nonconformance with industry standards or availability of safer alternatives)
Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260 (2002) (expert may rely on OSHA/other regulations to explain basis for negligence opinion)
Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186 (1981) (adoption of FRE 703/705 principles; experts may rely on otherwise inadmissible data when reliable)
Decker v. Libell, 193 Ill. 2d 250 (2000) (trial judge acts as gatekeeper over expert testimony relevance and reliability)
Ruffiner v. Material Service Corp., 116 Ill. 2d 53 (1987) (insufficient foundation may preclude admission of industry standards; expert must have reliable factual basis)