Illinois Appellate Court: Statute of repose, insufficient evidence relieve airplane manufacturer

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Product Liability

Illinois Appellate Court: Statute of repose, insufficient evidence relieve airplane manufacturer in negligence and strict liability lawsuit

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

The Illinois statute of repose applied to bar products liability claims filed against an aircraft manufacturer for an injury that occurred on an aircraft sold to an air carrier more than 20 years before the incident, a state appellate court in Illinois ruled in an unpublished opinion, affirming the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the manufacturer on all counts. The appellate court also determined that the evidence did not support the passenger’s breach of warranty, negligent design, or negligent manufacture claims. (Hutton v. Boeing Co., October 29, 2015, Howse, N.).

Background. In 2009, two passengers aboard a 737-300 aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company and sold to Southwest Airlines in 1988 were struck in the head when a panel fell from above their seats. Both passengers received medical attention while onboard the airplane. An aircraft mechanic testified that the panel weighed two to three ounces. One of the passengers, Anthony Ware, stated that his injuries were minor to nonexistent, but Berniece Hutton asked to be transported to a hospital. She later filed a multi-count lawsuit against Boeing, Southwest Airlines, a paramedic, and the hospital where she was transported, alleging that she had several serious and related injuries and asked for more than $50 million in damages.

Boeing’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The trial court concluded that the Illinois statute of repose barred the product liability and failure to warn claims, the negligent manufacture claim failed because there was no evidence that Boeing owed Hutton any duty after the sale of the airplane, and that Hutton lacked standing to pursue the breach of warranty claims because she did not demonstrate that she was an intended beneficiary of any warranty. Hutton was permitted to file the present appeal while the claims against Southwest remained pending in state court.
....

The case is Nos. 1-14-2697 and 1-14-2812, Consolidated.

[AngryAmish]

1. This is a mentally ill plaintiff who could not find a lawyer to take the case.

But I'm sure the insurance lobby will have a field day.

Just another way to shit on people with legitimate claims.

[HereSince1628]

2. I looked but didn't see any indication of a mental health dx in that report

Did I miss it, or did you just want to use mental illness as a cudgel?

[AngryAmish]

3. I was sitting in Judge Egan's courtroom once when this case was called

She is a nutter.