Williams v. Brown Manufacturing Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the doctrine of product misuse bars recovery when a person uses a product “for a purpose neither intended nor foreseeable”
• strict liability cause of action involving sale of contraceptive pill did not accrue when pill was manufactured, sold or consumed, but when plaintiff suffered stroke
• subsequently overruled as to effect but not definition of misuse, see Coney v. J.L.G. Indus., Inc., 97 Ill.2d 104, 73 Ill.Dec. 337, 454 N.E.2d 197 (1983)
• adequate safeguards exist against injustice in that plaintiff has burden of proof and products liability defendant is in a better position to know the condition of its product when it left its control
• adequate safeguards exist against injustice in that plaintiff has burden of proof and products liability defendant is in a better position to know the condition of its product when it left its control
• “[I]t has generally been recognized in Illinois and elsewhere that plaintiffs who ‘misuse’ a product—uses it for a purpose neither intended nor ‘foreseeable’ (objectively reasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).