Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc.
Illinois Supreme Court
864 N.E.2d 227 (2007)
Facts
Mechanics Michael Forsythe and Gary Szabla died in an oil-refinery fire. Their widows and estate administrators, Marguerite Forsythe and Elizabeth Szabla (plaintiffs) sued refinery operator Clark Refining and Marketing (Clark Refining) and its parent company, Clark USA (defendants). Michael and Gary had been in the lunchroom at the oil refinery when employees in an adjacent room tried to replace a valve without ensuring that a pipe containing flammable materials was depressurized. Allegedly the employees were not trained or qualified as maintenance mechanics. The widows claimed Clark USA was liable because its budgetary strategy eliminated spending that might have prevented the fire. In internal documents, Clark USA president and Clark Refining chief executive officer Paul Melnuk had prepared a “survival mode” strategy marked by reduced working-capital investment, spending, and operating expenses. Melnuk wrote the strategy on Clark USA letterhead but testified it was carried out for Clark Refining. Clark Refining allegedly had to minimize operating costs for training, maintenance, supervision, and safety; limit capital investments to cash-generating expenditures (not reinforcing or relocating the lunchroom); use inadequate safety and training procedures; and use unqualified employees as maintenance mechanics. The trial court granted Clark USA summary judgment. The appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.