## Facts

- A four-year-old child visited her grandfather’s farm while he operated a forage wagon in a barnyard.
- The wagon used exposed, slowly moving conveyor belts/screens with openings large enough for fingers; vegetation moved along the mechanism toward a steel end that could shear objects caught in the belts.
- The complaint alleged the conveyor mechanism lacked a shield or guard and lacked attachment points (bolts, latches, or holes) for a guard.
- The child approached the running machine, placed her hand on the conveyor mechanism, and suffered injury.
- The plaintiff sued the grandfather for negligence and sued the manufacturer (Helix Corporation) in strict products liability, alleging the wagon was unreasonably dangerous when it left the manufacturer’s control and was being used as intended.
- The trial court dismissed the strict-liability count for failure to state a claim; the appellate court reversed; the Illinois Supreme Court allowed review.

## Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for injuries to a very young non-user bystander when the injury-producing circumstances were not objectively reasonably foreseeable in light of the product’s intended use and expected users.
2. Whether pleading an “innocent bystander” theory eliminates the requirement that the injury be within the reasonably foreseeable scope of risk for strict products liability.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the strict-liability count.
- The court held the complaint did not state a strict products-liability cause of action against the manufacturer.
- The court concluded the alleged injury to a four-year-old near an operating forage wagon was not objectively reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer and fell outside the scope of risks tied to intended uses and intended users.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability is limited to harms that are objectively reasonably foreseeable in light of the product’s intended or reasonably foreseeable uses and users.
- Extension of strict liability beyond purchasers to users and some bystanders does not make the manufacturer an insurer against all injuries involving the product.
- A bystander’s status alone does not establish liability; the injury must still be within the reasonably foreseeable scope of risk associated with the product’s expected operation.

## Conclusion

The court limited strict products liability by holding that, even where a product is alleged to be unreasonably dangerous, a manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries to a non-user child bystander when the pleaded facts do not show the injury was objectively reasonably foreseeable in connection with the product’s intended use and expected users.


Winnett v. Winnett, 310 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 1974)