Facts
- Clifford M. Jasper died from injuries sustained while operating a hydraulic aerial work platform manufactured by J.L.G. Industries, Inc.
- Jasper’s estate, through administrator Jack A. Coney, sued under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and Survival Act on a strict products liability theory.
- J.L.G. asserted affirmative defenses alleging (a) Jasper’s comparative negligence/fault in operating the platform and (b) Jasper’s employer’s comparative negligence in failing to train Jasper and failing to provide a “groundman.”
- J.L.G. also sought a judgment limited to its percentage of overall fault, rejecting joint and several liability.
- The circuit court struck both defenses and certified questions for interlocutory review; the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to address the certified questions.
Issues
- Whether comparative negligence/fault applies to strict products liability actions.
- If comparative fault applies, whether it eliminates joint and several liability among multiple tortfeasors.
- Whether prospective application of the comparative-fault rule, while retaining joint and several liability, violates equal protection.
Decision
- The court held that comparative fault principles apply in strict products liability and may reduce a plaintiff’s damages.
- The court held that adoption of comparative fault does not abrogate joint and several liability for an indivisible injury.
- The court rejected the equal-protection challenge and permitted prospective application of its comparative-fault holding.
- The trial court’s order was affirmed, and the cause was remanded with directions consistent with the opinion.
Legal Principles
- Comparative fault may be asserted in strict products liability as a damages-allocation doctrine without altering strict liability elements (no need to prove negligence or privity).
- A plaintiff’s lack of due care for personal safety can diminish recovery in proportion to fault even though the defendant’s product-related conduct remains the tortious basis for liability.
- Joint and several liability remains applicable under comparative fault when multiple actors contribute to a single, indivisible injury.
- Apportioning responsibility does not make an indivisible injury divisible; eliminating joint and several liability would shift the risk of insolvent or immune tortfeasors from defendants to the plaintiff.
- Prospective application of a new tort rule may be permissible and does not necessarily violate equal protection.
Conclusion
Illinois permits comparative fault to reduce damages in strict products liability while preserving joint and several liability to protect a plaintiff’s ability to obtain full compensation for an indivisible injury, leaving allocation among responsible actors to contribution or related post-judgment mechanisms.