## Facts

- A Michigan resident bought a Sears Craftsman riding lawn tractor from a Sears store in Michigan.
- Sears provided an identical replacement tractor under warranty.
- While mowing at the family’s home in Michigan, the purchaser accidentally backed over his three-year-old son, causing severe injuries.
- The child and his mother, both Michigan residents, sued Sears in Illinois state court, alleging design defect and failure to warn under strict liability and negligence theories, including the absence of a no-mow-in-reverse safety feature.
- Sears was incorporated in New York and maintained its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Illinois; plaintiffs alleged certain design, testing, investigative, and distribution decisions occurred in Illinois.
- The trial court held Illinois law governed liability and damages and certified an interlocutory question; the appellate court agreed.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review to resolve the certified conflict-of-laws question.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois or Michigan law governs liability and damages in a products liability and negligence action when the plaintiffs reside in Michigan, the injury and purchase occurred in Michigan, and the defendant’s headquarters and certain alleged conduct occurred in Illinois.
2. Under Illinois choice-of-law rules for torts, whether the place-of-injury presumption is displaced by another state’s asserted interest in regulating in-state corporate decision-making.
3. How differing substantive rules (strict liability vs. negligence, punitive damages availability, and noneconomic damages caps) affect the interest analysis.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s answer to the certified question.
- The court held Michigan law governs the liability and damages issues.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with applying Michigan substantive law.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois applies the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “most significant relationship” test in tort cases, considering §§ 145 and 146 in light of § 6 policy factors.
- For personal injury, there is a presumption that the law of the state where the injury occurred applies unless another state has a more significant relationship to the issue.
- Relevant contacts include the place of injury, place of conduct causing injury, the parties’ domiciles/residences, and where the parties’ relationship is centered.
- A defendant’s Illinois headquarters and alleged in-Illinois design or distribution decisions, without more, do not automatically displace the injury-state presumption for out-of-state injuries.
- When competing state laws materially differ and reflect deliberate policy choices (including damages limitations), the forum must weigh each state’s interests issue-by-issue rather than applying forum law broadly to nationwide injuries.

## Conclusion

Because the injury, plaintiffs’ residence, product purchase, and the parties’ relationship were centered in Michigan, and Michigan had strong policy interests in applying its liability and damages regime to injuries within its borders, Michigan law—not Illinois law—governs the case’s liability and damages issues.


Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147, 879 N.E.2d 893 (Ill. 2007)