Gutterman v. Target Corp.
242 F. Supp. 3d 695
N.D. Ill.2017Background
- On May 26, 2018, nearly-12-year-old Madison Gutterman took a skateboard off a Target shelf in Vernon Hills, removed no packaging, rode it down an aisle, fell, and was injured.
- The skateboard was manufactured/distributed by Bravo and arrived with a cardboard "truck box" deterrent over the rear wheels and visible plastic shrink-wrap covering the grip tape; the particular board Madison rode lacked the truck box and still had the plastic wrap.
- The truck box is easily removed by pulling; the plastic wrap made the board slippery and the parties agree it contributed to Madison’s fall.
- A warning sticker on the wrapped board cautioned about risk of serious injury and recommended protective gear; Madison wore flip-flops and no protective gear.
- Plaintiffs (Madison’s parents) sued Target (premises liability/negligence) and Bravo (negligent design and strict products liability). Both defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment to both Target and Bravo, concluding (inter alia) the danger was open and obvious and Plaintiffs failed to show a design defect under consumer-expectation or risk-utility analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Target owed a duty for injuries from riding the skateboard in-store (negligence / premises liability) | Target should have prevented the skateboard from being ridden in-store (by keeping deterrents on, policing displays) | The skateboard and its risks were open and obvious; Target owed no duty to protect against that risk | Court: danger was open and obvious to a reasonable near-12-year-old; no duty; summary judgment for Target |
| Whether the open-and-obvious doctrine applies to a child in this context | Child’s age and parental supervision made the danger not entirely obvious or foreseeable | Even a near-12-year-old would recognize skateboard risks; parents warned her; doctrine applies | Court: open-and-obvious applies to children here; risk foreseeable to be avoided by child; supports dismissal |
| Whether Bravo negligently designed the skateboard (inadequate deterrent device) | Truck box was too easily removed, allowing use in stores and creating unreasonable risk | The risk of riding a skateboard in a store is open and obvious; imposing a duty to make an "unremovable" deterrent is unduly burdensome | Court: open-and-obvious reduces foreseeability and likelihood; burden/costs weigh against imposing duty; summary judgment for Bravo |
| Whether Bravo is strictly liable for design defects (truck box and plastic wrap) | Truck box is ineffective; plastic wrap made board unsafe — product is unreasonably dangerous / failure to warn | No unequal knowledge of risk; danger open and obvious; Plaintiffs offered no consumer-expectation evidence or risk-utility analysis | Court: failure-to-warn fails (open & obvious). Design-defect claims fail—Plaintiffs gave no consumer-expectation proof and risk-utility factors favor Bravo; summary judgment for Bravo |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruns v. City of Centralia, 21 N.E.3d 684 (Ill. 2014) (articulates duty analysis and role of open-and-obvious rule in premises liability)
- Ward v. K Mart Corp., 554 N.E.2d 223 (Ill. 1990) (factors for duty and discussion of open-and-obvious rule)
- Corcoran v. Vill. of Libertyville, 383 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 1978) (open-and-obvious dangers and application to children)
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 864 N.E.2d 249 (Ill. 2007) (standards for negligent design and strict products liability tests)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 329 (Ill. 2008) (consumer-expectation and risk-utility tests in design-defect cases)
- Blue v. Envtl. Eng’g, Inc., 828 N.E.2d 1128 (Ill. 2005) (distinguishing negligence and strict-liability approaches in product-defect law)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 772 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. 2002) (failure-to-warn requires unequal knowledge; no duty where danger is open and obvious)