Patricia Ferraro v. Hewlett-Packard Company
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13569
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ferraro sustained second- and third-degree burns on her forearm after the power adapter of an HP DV800 notebook overheated while she slept with the laptop on a sofa.
- She sued HP for design defect, inadequate warnings, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability; Best Buy was later dismissed from the dispute.
- Discovery produced three Ferraro experts (Poczynok, Johnson, Cucin) and three HP experts (Lee, Galler, Shah) offering competing views on design, heat, and warnings.
- The district court granted HP summary judgment on all claims, holding Ferraro could not prove unreasonable dangerousness under either consumer-expectations or risk-utility tests, and rejected her warning and warranty theories.
- On appeal, Ferraro challenged only the consumer-expectations ruling; the risk-utility ruling and the dismissals on warnings and warranty were not challenged, and the court affirmed based on risk-utility grounds.
- The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that under Mikolajczyk the risk-utility test trumps the consumer-expectations test when the tests yield conflicting results, and thus affirmed on an independent unchallenged ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ferraro can prove unreasonable dangerousness under the consumer-expectations test | Ferraro argues the power adapter was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. | HP contends the device performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect and does not meet consumer-expectations. | Not dispositive; risk-utility controls if conflicting, but issue acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamkin v. Towner, 138 Ill.2d 510 (Ill. 1990) (defines consumer-expectations test for unreasonably dangerous product)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill.2d 516 (Ill. 2008) (risk-utility vs consumer-expectations; risk-utility trumps when they conflict)
- Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 224 Ill.2d 247 (Ill. 2007) (illustrates risk-utility considerations in design defect cases)
- Gilbertson v. Rolscreen Co., 150 Ill.App.3d 192 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (address proximate cause in product liability)
- Kleen v. Homak Mfg. Co., Inc., 321 Ill.App.3d 639 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (proximate cause inquiry in Illinois product liability)
- Sobczak v. General Motors Corp., 373 Ill.App.3d 910 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (risk-utility factor considerations in design defect cases)
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096 (Ill. 2011) (comprehensive framework for Illinois design defect analysis)
- Senese v. Chi Area I.B. of T. Pension Fund, 237 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2001) (waiver principle for unchallenged grounds on appeal)
- Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 342 Ill.App.3d 1028 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (unfitness of goods for ordinary purposes required for warranty claim)