Show v. Ford Motor Co.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19203
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Show and Federici sued Ford in Illinois state court alleging 1993 Explorer design caused a rollover after a low-speed collision; case removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Plaintiffs and Ford consented to final decision by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
- At end of discovery plaintiffs had not designated a design-expert; magistrate granted Ford summary judgment for lack of expert proof.
- Illinois allows design-defect liability under two theories: consumer-expectation and risk-utility; expert testimony is typically needed for risk-utility cases.
- District court rejected plaintiffs’ view that jurors could rely on lay consumer expectations without experts.
- Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that expert evidence is required for a complex design-defect claim and that the integrated risk-utility/consumer-expectations approach does not dispense with experts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is expert testimony required to prove design defect under Illinois law for a complex product? | Show argues jurors can rely on lay consumer expectations without experts. | Ford argues expert proof is essential for complex designs (risk-utility and causal analysis). | Yes; expert proof required. |
| Does federal law determine what kind of evidence is required on a design-defect claim? | Unclear; plaintiffs assume state-law treatment governs proof. | Defense contends forum/federal rules govern proof, including expert evidence requirements. | Federal law controls evidence rules; expert evidence is required under the applicable standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill.2d 516 (Ill. 2008) (integrated risk-utility approach includes consumer expectations; expert proof needed for complex design)
- Baltus v. Weaver Division of Kidde & Co., 199 Ill.App.3d 821 (Ill.App. 1990) (expert testimony vital when design/operation exceed lay knowledge)
- Henry v. Panasonic Factory Automation Co., 396 Ill.App.3d 321 (Ill.App. 2009) (design-defect cases often require expert evidence)
- Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., 469 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2006) (Wisconsin choice-of-law context; discussions on design-defect proof)
- Barron v. Ford Motor Co., 965 F.2d 195 (7th Cir. 1992) (statutory/choice-of-law considerations in expert evidence)