Coney v. J.L.G. Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Illinois · 1983 · Torts

97 Ill. 2d 104 (1983)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsstrict products liabilitycomparative faultcomparative negligencejoint and several liabilityassumption of riskmisusecontributory negligence

Facts

Jasper died from injuries sustained while operating a hydraulic aerial work platform manufactured by defendant. Plaintiff sued under wrongful death and survival acts based on strict products liability. Defendant asserted as affirmative defenses that Jasper was comparatively negligent in operating the platform and that Jasper’s employer was comparatively negligent in failing to instruct and train him and in failing to provide a groundman. Defendant sought comparison of all fault and a ruling that any judgment reflect only its percentage of overall liability rather than joint and several liability.

Issue

Whether comparative fault applies in strict products liability actions, whether adoption of comparative fault abolishes joint and several liability, and whether retaining joint and several liability denies defendants equal protection.

Rule

In Illinois strict products liability actions, once defendant’s liability is established, and both the defective product and plaintiff’s misconduct contribute to cause the damages, comparative fault reduces plaintiff’s recovery by the amount of fault attributable to plaintiff. A plaintiff’s mere failure to discover or guard against a defect is not compared as a damage-reducing factor. Misuse and assumption of the risk are no longer complete bars but are compared in apportioning damages. Comparative negligence does not abolish the common law doctrine of joint and several liability, and retention of that doctrine does not deny equal protection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Talia Mercer was injured when a scaffold manufactured by North Gate Lift Systems collapsed because of a design defect. At trial, the jury found the scaffold defective and also found that Talia had disabled a stabilizing feature to speed up her work, which contributed to her injuries.

How should the court treat Talia's conduct in her strict products liability action against North Gate Lift Systems?

Explanation. Once the defendant's strict products liability is established, and both the product defect and the plaintiff's misconduct contributed to cause the damages, comparative fault reduces the plaintiff's recovery by the amount attributable to the plaintiff. Misuse is no longer a complete bar; it is compared in apportioning damages.