## 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

1. Whether comparative negligence/fault applies to strict products liability actions.
2. If comparative fault applies, whether it eliminates joint and several liability among multiple tortfeasors.
3. 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.


Coney v. J.L.G. Indus., Inc., 97 Ill. 2d 104, 454 N.E.2d 197 (Ill. 1983)