## Facts

- J.C. Reed was arrested on November 12, 2000, and detained in a cell at the City of Chicago’s Fifth District Police Station under the control of Chicago police officers.
- The complaint alleged the officers knew Reed was mentally unstable and suicidal and witnessed him attempt suicide by cutting his wrists.
- The officers allegedly removed Reed’s clothing and provided a paper isolation gown.
- Reed allegedly used the gown to hang himself in the cell; officers allegedly found him still alive but failed to provide proper medical care, and he later died.
- The estate alleged Edwards Medical Supply, Inc. designed, manufactured, and distributed the gown, knew it might be used on suicidal detainees, and supplied a gown that was defectively designed because it did not tear or otherwise fail when used as a ligature.
- The estate asserted federal constitutional claims and Illinois tort claims against the City and officers, and strict liability, negligent design/manufacture, and warranty claims against Edwards Medical Supply.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated viable Illinois tort claims against the City in light of asserted statutory immunities and pleading requirements at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a design defect and proximate causation against the gown’s manufacturer to support strict liability and negligence theories.
3. Whether privity of contract was required for breach of express or implied warranty claims where the injured person was a non-purchasing detainee who used the product.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing some state-law claims while allowing others to proceed.
- The court denied Edwards Medical Supply’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion in full, allowing strict liability, negligence, and warranty claims to proceed.
- The court held that, under Illinois law and U.C.C. § 2-318 as adopted in Illinois, privity was not an absolute requirement for warranty claims by an intended and foreseeable user such as a detainee.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor; dismissal is improper if relief could be granted on facts consistent with the complaint.
- A products-liability complaint may proceed where it plausibly alleges an unreasonably dangerous design and a causal connection between the alleged defect and the injury, including where the harm arises from a foreseeable use in the product’s contemplated setting.
- Under Illinois’s adoption of U.C.C. § 2-318 (Alternative A) and Illinois warranty doctrine, lack of privity does not automatically bar an express or implied warranty claim for personal injury when the plaintiff is an intended and foreseeable user or beneficiary of the product’s safety assurances.
- Warranty protection may extend beyond the institutional purchaser when the safety of end users is a central purpose of the transaction and limiting suit to the purchaser would defeat the remedial function of warranties.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the estate to pursue product-defect and warranty claims against the gown supplier and held that a detainee’s lack of direct contractual privity did not require dismissal where the detainee was an intended and foreseeable user; the court also partially dismissed and partially sustained claims against the City at the pleading stage.


Reed v. City of Chicago, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Ill. 2003)