Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co.
2011 IL 110096
| Ill. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Dora Mae and John L. Jablonski, Jr. sued Ford for negligent design of the 1993 Lincoln Town Car's fuel tank and for willful and wanton conduct, seeking punitive damages.
- The Town Car rear-end collided in a construction zone, the trunk contained a pipe wrench that punctured the fuel tank, causing a fatal fire; plaintiffs survived with injuries.
- Trial proceeded for 11 days; plaintiffs abandoned strict liability and pursued negligent-design theories: tank location, shielding from trunk contents, warning about trunk contents puncturing the tank, and a post-sale warning theory not previously pleaded.
- Ford argued the vertical-behind-the-axle tank was the best design for that vehicle, that it met and exceeded industry standards, and that the accident was unforeseeable and highly unlikely.
- Jury returned a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor on compensatory damages and punitive damages; appellate court affirmed; Supreme Court granted Ford’s petition to review.
- Court holds that a risk-utility balancing framework governs negligent-design duty; compliance with industry standards is a factor, not dispositive; post-sale duty to warn and voluntary-undertaking theories were not cognizable under Illinois law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is industry-standard compliance dispositive on duty? | Jablonski argues industry standards guide duty under risk-utility. | Ford contends compliance largely determines reasonable design duty. | Industry standards are a factor, not dispositive. |
| Did Ford's vertical-behind-the-axle tank breach the risk-utility duty? | Arndt shows a safer feasible alternative existed and shielding could reduce risk. | Ford argues current design balances safety, utility, and cost; alternatives pose other risks. | No reversible error; evidence insufficient to prove unreasonableness at manufacture. |
| Was Ford's shielding or warning about trunk contents puncturing the tank required? | Shielding or warnings were feasible and should have been employed. | No proven feasible shield; warning would be premature; insufficient evidence of foreseeability. | Insufficient evidence to submit negligent-shielding or warning theories to jury. |
| Can a postsale duty to warn be recognized in Illinois here? | Restatement Third supports a postsale duty to warn when warranted. | No Illinois authority supports a post-sale duty to warn for a non-defective at sale product; not pleaded. | Rejected; postsale duty to warn not cognizable under Illinois law as pleaded. |
| Does voluntary undertakings doctrine create liability for civilian customers? | Ford undertook to warn police and not civilians; could create duty to others. | Undertaking limited to police-related measures; not extendable to civilian owners. | Voluntary undertaking doctrine does not create a duty to civilian customers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247 (Ill. 2007) (establishes risk-utility framework in negligent-design cases)
- Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill. 2d 78 (Ill. 2005) (industry-standard conformance is not dispositive)
- Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515 (Ill. 2007) (negligence framework and duty concepts in Illinois)
- Ruffiner v. Material Service Corp., 116 Ill. 2d 53 (Ill. 1987) (industry standards as factors in determining reasonable care)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 (Ill. 2008) (risk-utility formulation informing design-defect analysis)
- Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 33 Ill. 2d 326 (Ill. 1965) (negligence standard and balancing considerations)
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 247 (Ill. 2007) (nonexhaustive list of risk-utility factors in design cases)