Product liability and strict liability laws

healyscanlonveugelergannon • September 4, 2015

Illinois law strictly dictates that all manufacturers of products and consumer goods are responsible for the products that they release to the market for purchase. Since product liability is based on the tort law principle of negligence, the manufacturer is only liable in the event that the victim can prove that the damage and injury caused to the consumer could have been foreseen by the manufacturer. One of the most important things that every manufacturer must be careful about is that their products should never be dangerous.

If it is possible to provide evidence that the products sold and manufactured by the defendants were dangerous, the court may hold the manufacturer liable for the product. There are some criteria under which  strict product liability  can be proved in court. The types of defects that can result in a dangerous product may include the following; manufacturing defects, design defects and providing inadequate warnings on the product.

A manufacturing defect is that defect that was made in the manufacturing process itself and can result in the product becoming unfit for consumption and use by any consumer.

There are two established tests in order to determine if there is a design defect under Restatement (Second) of Torts in Illinois. The first test is described in Section 402A, which is the test for “consumer expectation.” That states that the danger of the product is above what the product would be used for by any reasonable consumer. The second test is for “risk utility,” in which it is proved that the unreasonably dangerous product’s risks and dangers overshadow any of the benefits that the product can offer.

The principle regarding an inadequate warning on the product essentially relies on the principle that the lack of warning on the product makes it so unreasonably dangerous to the consumer that the injury was a direct result of no warning labels.

Consumers have a rightful expectation of safety when purchasing a product. When that trust is betrayed, a person may have reason to seek damages for injuries suffered. Seeking the assistance of an experienced attorney can help those in such situations properly navigate the possibly complicated path.

Source:  Illinois Courts, “ Strict product liability ,” Accessed on Aug. 26, 2015

$1,000,000.00 Verdict

April 13, 2026
Attorneys Michael P. Scanlon and Timothy J. Ganshirt secured a $1,000,000.00 Verdict for their client, Jane Doe. Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by her acupuncturist when she went to his office for treatment. Prior to trial, the Defendant did not make a settlement offer. At trial, the Defendant's attorneys argued that Plaintiff consented and recommended that the jury award a maximum of $7,000 to $8,000 to the Plaintiff, if the jury were to award anything. Instead, the jury returned a verdict for $1,000,000.00. Michael and Tim are filing a motion to add interest, fees, and costs to the verdict. If granted, thetotal judgment could reach up to $1,234,333.06.  This case highlights the importance of making sure that you choose attorneys who are willing to go to trial to ensure your case gets the full value it deserves.

$40 Million Settlement

March 25, 2026
Matthew M. Gannon and Michael P. Scanlon secured $40,000,000 for an operating engineer who suffered from third degree burns following a blast at an industrial facility.