Keen v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc.

Citations: 364 N.E.2d 502; 49 Ill. App. 3d 480; 7 Ill. Dec. 341; 1977 Ill. App. LEXIS 2801Docket: 76-1183

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; June 1, 1977; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eleanore Keen filed a lawsuit against Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. for injuries sustained while using a shopping cart in their store in Highland Park, Illinois. Her complaint included four counts: negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, and breach of duty of care by a bailor. The trial court dismissed all counts except for negligence. Keen appealed the dismissal of the strict tort liability count.

Keen alleged that on January 21, 1975, while pushing a shopping cart, it tipped over, causing her injury as she tried to prevent it from falling. She claimed the cart was unsafe and prone to tipping. Dominick's argued they were not liable under strict products liability because they did not place the cart into the stream of commerce. The trial court sided with Dominick's, leading to the appeal.

The court reviewed the principles of strict liability as established in Suvada v. White Motor Co., which require plaintiffs to prove that their injury resulted from a product condition that was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the manufacturer’s control. The court noted that liability applies to sellers of defective products, as outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, 402A, and emphasized that a party must be engaged in the business of selling the product in question to be held liable. The judgment reaffirmed that strict liability aims to hold accountable those who profit from placing potentially dangerous products into commerce.

Liability under strict products liability principles does not extend to defendants outside the original production and marketing chain. In this case, Dominick's does not sell or rent shopping carts but provides them as a convenience to customers. The plaintiff argues for liability based on Bainter v. Lamoine LP Gas Co., where a defective tank used for gas storage was deemed integral to the product sold. However, the shopping cart is merely a temporary convenience for transporting groceries, not an essential part of the sale. The court distinguishes this from Bainter, emphasizing that the shopping cart's use does not make Dominick's liable for defects, as it does not alter the nature of the product being sold. Dominick's is considered a user of the cart, not part of the distribution chain subject to strict liability. Public policy does not necessitate elevating the duty of care beyond reasonable standards for storekeepers. The plaintiff can still pursue negligence claims against Dominick's or strict liability against the cart's manufacturer. The reliance on Nowakowski v. Hoppe Tire Co. is incorrect, as that case involved a service business with more direct involvement in the product's functionality.

Defendant was determined to be a supplier of a defective product and thus liable under strict products liability principles. The circuit court's dismissal of the strict products liability count was affirmed. Justice Simon dissented, arguing that the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed to trial on this count. He contended that Dominick's was part of the commerce chain from the cart's manufacturer to the plaintiff, and that the flow of commerce continued through Dominick's to its customers. Justice Simon viewed Dominick's as a supplier to its customers, asserting that shopping carts are crucial for customers making purchases and are indirectly included in the store's pricing. He emphasized that strict liability aims to allocate losses to those profiting from a defective product, which applies to Dominick's role in supplying the carts. Justice Simon disagreed with the majority's interpretation of case law, arguing that it does not support a lower duty of care for shopkeepers in this context. He clarified that the current issue is whether the plaintiff stated a proper cause of action, not whether she can ultimately recover. For the plaintiff to succeed, she must prove the defect existed when the cart left the manufacturer or that Dominick's caused the defect. However, these proofs were not addressed in this appeal due to the absence of a trial. Justice Simon advocated for reversing the dismissal to allow the plaintiff to present her case at trial.