Perez v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 2012 IL App (2d) 110382

Perez, a painter on a construction site, fell from a scissor lift after the back guard gate was removed prior to use.
The lift’s guard gate is an upside-down U-shaped piece affixed to the guard railing with a bolt, a nylon locking nut, and two locking pins.
Removal of the gate required removing the nut/bolt with tools and pulling out the pins; the gate was held in place by channels and could be removed by manipulating these fasteners.
Plaintiff sued JLG Industries, Inc. under strict liability and negligence, alleging the lift was unreasonably dangerous due to the easily removable guard gate.
The trial court granted summary judgment for JLG, ruling that the removal was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law.
Appellate reversal and remand based on a material factual dispute about foreseeability of the gate’s removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the gate’s removal was reasonably foreseeable	Perez contends foreseeability supports liability	JLG argues removal was unforeseeable as a matter of law	Genuine issue of material fact; remand

Augenstine v. Dico Co., 135 Ill. App. 3d 273 (1985) (foreseeability requires injury to result from an unreasonably dangerous condition existing when left control)
Davis v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co., 284 Ill. App. 3d 214 (1996) (alteration of safety features and foreseeability evidence can create jury question)
DeArmond v. Hoover Ball & Bearing, Uniloy Division, 86 Ill. App. 3d 1066 (1980) (removal of multiple bolts/rod may be unforeseeable; context matters)
Doran v. Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Co., 45 Ill. App. 3d 981 (1977) (causal connection broken only if acts of others were improbable or unforeseeable)
Foster v. Devilbiss Co., 174 Ill. App. 3d 359 (1988) (foreseeability concept applicable to products altered post-manufacture)
Winnett v. Winnett, 57 Ill. 2d 7 (1974) (foreseeability means objectively reasonable to expect)