Pommier v. Jungheinrich Lift Trick Corp.
102 N.E.3d 684
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Karrie Pommier sued Jungheinrich Lift Truck Corp. (JLT), Multiton Mic Corp. (MMC), and Calumet after injuring her right shoulder while operating a Multiton ELE 45 electric pallet jack on Oct. 29, 2009. Claims: negligence and strict products liability.
- The jack’s brake system uses a tiller, a cam screwed onto the tiller, and a roller switch; cam position determines brake activation ranges (lower: 15–34°, F arc: 34–80°, upper: 80–90°). Proper assembly fixed the cam at 39°.
- Examination of the jack showed the cam had been inverted at some point; no other manufacturing defects were found. Experts agreed witness marks indicated the cam had once been correctly positioned.
- The manufacturer (not a defendant) made the jack in 1999; Millipore bought it new and Calumet performed periodic maintenance. Service records from 1999–2008 are absent.
- Plaintiff’s expert opined the inverted cam caused the injury and proposed a locking-nut design and on-machine warnings. His measurements, however, showed the inversion actually reduced brake activation zones, undermining causation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants (JLT and MMC); plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding plaintiff failed to show foreseeability of the modification or that the inversion proximately caused her injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the inverted cam a design defect present when product left defendants’ control? | Pommier: inversion did not meaningfully modify design; defect existed from manufacture. | JLT/MMC: inversion was a subsequent modification, not a design defect attributable to them. | Held: Inversion was a modification; plaintiff produced no evidence defendants left the product with that condition. |
| Could defendants reasonably foresee third‑party or operator modification of the cam? | Pommier: defendants should have foreseen operators or maintenance personnel could invert the cam and thus should have designed against it. | JLT/MMC: operators were expressly forbidden to service/adjust the cam; no evidence operators typically adjust it; foreseeability lacking. | Held: No reasonable foreseeability; manufacturer need not guard against all possible post‑sale alterations. |
| Did plaintiff prove proximate cause between the inverted cam and her injury? | Pommier: her testimony that the jack suddenly stopped supports causation. | JLT/MMC: expert evidence showed inversion reduced brake activation, so it could not explain sudden stopping; plaintiff lacked evidence of tiller angle at injury. | Held: No; plaintiff’s expert findings contradicted causation, and her testimony alone was insufficient. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate? | Pommier: disputed facts (who inverted cam, design defect, causation) preclude summary judgment. | JLT/MMC: absence of evidence on foreseeability, condition at sale, and proximate cause entitles them to judgment as a matter of law. | Held: Yes; summary judgment affirmed for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 212 Ill. 2d 1 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill. 2d 78 (negligence design claim requires proof of standard of care and deviation)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 (elements of strict products liability)
- Hunt v. Blasius, 74 Ill. 2d 203 (manufacturer not an insurer of all product accidents)
- DeArmond v. Hoover Ball & Bearing, 86 Ill. App. 3d 1066 (manufacturer must anticipate modifications that operators can easily effect)