## Facts

- Karen Godfrey bought a 24-ounce vacuum-sealed, plastic-capped glass jar of Planters peanuts at a K-Mart in Chicago.
- To obtain a rebate, Godfrey used an Exacto knife to cut part of the label (including the bar code) and placed the jar on top of a refrigerator.
- About a week later, Richard Welge opened the jar, took peanuts, and reclosed it without incident.
- About another week later, Welge removed the cap, poured peanuts into his hand, and while pressing the cap back on with ordinary force, the jar shattered.
- Welge’s hand was severely cut, with claimed permanent impairment.
- The parties’ experts agreed the jar was defective but could not identify when or where in the manufacturing/distribution chain the defect was introduced.

## Issues

1. Whether circumstantial evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the jar was defective while in the control of at least one defendant, as required for Illinois strict products liability.
2. Whether the plaintiff had to exclude all other possible causes (including post-sale consumer mishandling) to avoid summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for Planters, K-Mart, and the jar manufacturer and remanded.
- A reasonable jury could infer a defect from the jar’s shattering under normal recapping force.
- The plaintiff was not required to negate every speculative alternative cause; it was enough to show the defect more likely than not existed while the product was within the defendants’ chain of distribution.
- Ordinary consumer handling related to removing a label for a rebate did not compel a finding of misuse or a break in causation as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A product defect may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including failure during ordinary, expected use, without elaborate expert proof when the inference of defect is strong.
- In strict products liability, the plaintiff need not identify which entity in the chain of distribution created the defect if the evidence supports that the product was defective while within the defendants’ control and was not materially altered before injury.
- The plaintiff’s burden is preponderance of the evidence; the plaintiff need not exclude “fantastic or remote” alternative explanations.
- On summary judgment, courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant and may not weigh competing explanations when the record supports a triable inference of defect and causation.

## Conclusion

Because the jar shattered under ordinary handling and the record supported an inference that the defect existed while the product was within the defendants’ distribution chain, summary judgment was improper, and the strict-liability claims were remanded for trial.


Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 17 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994)