Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. | 227 Ill. 2d 147, 879 N.E.2d 893 (2007)
A young boy was badly injured in Michigan by a riding lawnmower purchased from a store headquartered in Illinois. His mother’s subsequent legal battle on her own and his behalf, Townsend versus Sears, Roebuck and Company, featured a question about which state’s law governed the liability and damages issues.
James and Michelle Townsend lived in Michigan with their young son Jacob and three other children. One day, James was operating a Sears-brand riding lawnmower on the Townsends’ nearly two-acre property when the lawnmower got stuck against a railroad-tie planter. James looked over his shoulder and reversed, unable to see that Jacob was standing in the way. One of Jacob’s legs was badly injured in the accident, and his foot was later amputated. James had purchased the lawnmower from a local Sears store in Michigan, but the store was headquartered in Illinois, where it also made many of its design- and business-related decisions.
Michelle filed a personal-injury lawsuit in Illinois state court on behalf of herself and Jacob, accusing Sears of strict products liability and negligence based on the lawnmower’s defective design and the store’s failure to warn. During trial, a question arose about which state’s law governed the substantive liability and damages issues—Illinois or Michigan. This question was important because there were three big differences between Illinois and Michigan law that were going to affect the outcome of the case.
First, Illinois imposed a strict-liability standard for product-design defects, whereas Michigan imposed a pure negligence standard. Second, Illinois didn’t place any cap or upper limit on compensatory damages for noneconomic injuries, whereas Michigan did. And third, Illinois allowed for punitive damages in appropriate cases, whereas Michigan didn’t. Unsurprisingly, Michelle preferred Illinois law, and Sears preferred Michigan law.
The trial court ultimately concluded that Illinois law governed the liability and damages issues, and the intermediate appellate court agreed. Sears appealed once more, this time to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Ещё видео!