From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Illinois Supreme Court
227 Ill. 2d 147, 879 N.E.2d 893 (2007)
Facts
Michelle Townsend, a Michigan resident, (plaintiff) individually and on behalf of her minor son brought a personal-injury action in an Illinois state court against Sears, Roebuck & Co. (defendant) for damages sustained when Townsend’s minor son was severely injured in Michigan by a lawnmower that was manufactured by Electrolux Home Products in South Carolina and purchased by Townsend’s husband from a Sears store in Michigan. Sears is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. Townsend’s complaint alleged strict products liability and negligence based on an alleged design defect and failure to warn. Three conflict-of-laws questions arose regarding whether Illinois or Michigan law would apply to the issues of liability and damages. The first conflict was about liability: Illinois law followed strict liability for products design defects, although Michigan law imposed a strict-negligence standard in such cases. The second conflict was about compensatory damages: Illinois had no cap, and Michigan capped noneconomic damages. The third conflict was about punitive damages: Illinois law allowed for punitive damages in appropriate cases, but Michigan law did not. The trial and appellate courts concluded that Illinois law applied to the liability and damages issues. Sears appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 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.