Illinois Jury Awards $7.1M to Woman Severely Burned in Cooking Spray Mishap
A Pennsylvania woman suffered severe burns after a can of Swell cooking spray vented and ignited in a commercial kitchen, and an Illinois appellate court later upheld the jury’s verdict.
An Illinois jury awarded Pennsylvania woman Tammy Reese $7.1 million in a product liability lawsuit against Conagra Brands after a can of Swell cooking spray vented and ignited in a kitchen where she was working. The award included $3.1 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.
The case arose from a May 2017 incident in which a can of cooking spray in a commercial kitchen released its contents and ignited, causing a fire that seriously burned Reese. The lawsuit alleged that the can’s design made it unreasonably dangerous in a normal cooking environment.
The Cook County jury returned its $7.1 million verdict in October 2023. Conagra challenged the verdict, but in December 2024 the Illinois First District Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment denying Conagra’s request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Quick Answer
The jury found in favor of Reese on claims involving strict product liability, negligence, and willful and wanton conduct and awarded $7.1 million. The Illinois First District later affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence did not overwhelmingly favor Conagra such that the jury’s verdict could not stand.
The appellate decision is Reese v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2024 IL App (1st) 240315-U. It was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and therefore is generally not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by the rule.
The Cooking Spray Can Exploded in a Commercial Kitchen
Reese had worked in the kitchen of a social club in Pennsylvania for approximately 13 years. According to the appellate record, she routinely used the cooking spray involved in the case while working in the kitchen.
On the day of the accident, Reese had been cooking for approximately three hours. She was using three burners on a six-burner stove at medium heat while the oven was also operating. A can of the cooking spray was sitting on a metal shelf above the stove and oven.
Reese testified that she heard a “swoosh,” the can struck her in the face, and she immediately caught fire. The parties did not dispute that the can vented its contents and that the contents ignited, causing the fire that severely injured her.
Reese suffered deep second-degree burns to her head, face, arms, and hands. Scar tissue continued to restrict her movement years after the accident.
Reported Verdict
Total Award
Jury verdict in favor of Tammy Reese
Compensatory
Compensation awarded for the plaintiff’s losses
Punitive
Punitive damages awarded by the jury
How the Cooking Spray Can Was Designed
A significant part of Reese’s case involved the design of the aerosol can. According to the evidence described in the appellate opinion, Conagra began using the bottom-vented can design for the product in 2011 and continued using the design through 2019.
The can contained cooking oil and a hydrocarbon propellant. The propellant was flammable. The bottom of the can included U-shaped vents that were designed to open when pressure inside the can became sufficiently high.
According to testimony presented at trial, the vents were designed to open when the internal pressure reached approximately 180 pounds per square inch. The evidence indicated that the can could reach that pressure at a temperature of approximately 165 degrees Fahrenheit.
When the vents opened, the contents could be discharged into the surrounding environment. Because the propellant was flammable, the plaintiffs argued that releasing the contents near a stove or other ignition source created an unreasonable risk of fire.
Design Features at Issue
Bottom Vents
U-shaped vents were designed to open when internal pressure became high enough.
Flammable Propellant
The can contained a hydrocarbon propellant capable of igniting.
Heat Exposure
The plaintiff’s can was stored on a shelf above a commercial stove and oven.
Expert Testimony Supported the Design Defect Claim
At trial, materials-science and engineering expert Michael Tarkanian testified that the bottom-vented can was unreasonably dangerous in a cooking environment.
Tarkanian testified that the vents weakened the can and lowered the pressure at which the contents would be released. He also testified that other cooking spray products used cans without the same type of bottom vents and that those cans could withstand higher pressures.
According to his testimony, the can’s pressure tolerance was inadequate for a normal cooking environment because the can could reach its venting pressure at a relatively low temperature. He further testified that using a flammable propellant increased the danger associated with the design.
Tarkanian also testified that he had identified eight similar incidents occurring between 2012 and May 2017 involving cans of the same or similar product venting and releasing their contents in cooking environments.
The Plaintiff’s Theory
Reese’s case alleged that the can’s design created an unreasonable risk because it could vent flammable contents during ordinary and foreseeable use in a commercial kitchen. The defense disputed that theory and maintained that the product was safe when used according to its instructions.
Conagra Disputed the Jury’s Verdict
Conagra maintained that its cooking spray products were safe when used correctly and according to the warnings on the can. The company pointed to warnings instructing consumers not to use the product near heat or an open flame because its contents were flammable.
Conagra argued that Reese’s use of the can near a stove was not consistent with those warnings. Reese’s side argued that storing the product on a shelf above the stove was a foreseeable practice in a commercial kitchen and that the design was defective because the container could vent its flammable contents at temperatures that could occur during ordinary kitchen operations.
Conagra disagreed with the verdict and pursued posttrial relief and an appeal. The company continued to deny liability for the cooking spray claims.
In its appeal, Conagra argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s findings and challenged the evidence supporting the design defect, negligence, and willful-and-wanton claims.
Appellate Result
The Illinois First District rejected Conagra’s request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court concluded that the evidence did not overwhelmingly favor Conagra and that a reasonable jury could find for Reese based on the trial evidence.
What Is a Product Liability Lawsuit?
Product liability lawsuits seek compensation for injuries or other legally recognized harm allegedly caused by a defective or unreasonably dangerous product. Depending on the circumstances, a plaintiff may pursue claims based on a design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, or another recognized theory of liability.
Illinois law defines a product liability action broadly. Under 735 ILCS 5/13-213, a product liability action includes claims involving personal injury, death, or property and economic damage allegedly arising from the manufacture, design, characteristics, warnings, instructions, marketing, packaging, or other aspects of a product.
A design defect claim generally focuses on whether the product was unreasonably dangerous because of how it was designed. A manufacturing defect claim instead concerns a product that departs from its intended design. A failure-to-warn claim focuses on whether users received adequate information about material risks associated with reasonably anticipated uses of the product.
Common Product Liability Theories
Design Defect
The product is alleged to be unreasonably dangerous because of the design itself.
Manufacturing Defect
The individual product allegedly departed from its intended design or specifications.
Failure to Warn
The manufacturer or seller allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions concerning a material risk.
Product Liability Claims Can Involve Serious Injuries
Defective products can cause severe and permanent injuries, including burns, fractures, traumatic brain injuries, amputations, spinal injuries, and other life-changing conditions.
A product liability claim may seek compensation for medical expenses, future medical care, lost wages, reduced earning capacity, physical pain and suffering, disfigurement, disability, emotional harm, and other damages supported by the evidence.
The value and legal viability of a product liability case depend on the specific product, how it was used, the nature of the alleged defect, the warnings provided, expert evidence, the manufacturer’s conduct, and the circumstances surrounding the injury.
The Conagra Verdict Was Later Upheld on Appeal
In December 2024, the Illinois First District Appellate Court issued its decision in Reese v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2024 IL App (1st) 240315-U.
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Conagra’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court held that the evidence did not so overwhelmingly favor Conagra that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for Reese.
The appellate record specifically identified claims for strict product liability based on design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and nonspecific defect, as well as negligence and willful and wanton conduct. The jury’s verdict therefore survived the posttrial challenge addressed by the appellate court.
Case Timeline
Cooking Spray Incident
A can of cooking spray vented and ignited, causing serious burn injuries to Tammy Reese.
Jury Verdict
Cook County jury awarded $3.1 million in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.
Appellate Decision
Illinois First District affirmed the judgment against Conagra.
What This Case Means for Illinois Product Liability Claims
Reese v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2024 IL App (1st) 240315-U demonstrates the importance of the evidence presented by both sides in a product liability case. The appellate court did not substitute its judgment for the jury’s simply because Conagra offered competing evidence about product safety and warnings.
The case also demonstrates why expert testimony can be important in design defect litigation. Reese’s engineering expert provided testimony concerning the can’s pressure tolerance, venting system, temperature characteristics, flammable propellant, and the alleged risks created by the design.
A manufacturer may argue that a product is safe when used according to its instructions. A plaintiff may nevertheless contend that the product was defective because the alleged danger arose during a reasonably anticipated use that the manufacturer should have considered when designing the product.
The legal analysis is highly fact-specific. A jury’s verdict in one product liability case does not establish that every similar product is defective or that every person injured by a similar product will recover damages.
Talk to a Champaign, IL Product Liability Attorney Today
Have you been injured by a dangerous or defective product? Call the Champaign, IL product liability attorneys at Patel Law, PC at 217-384-1111 to schedule a free consultation and learn more about potential claims for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
Associated Press: Cooking Spray Burn Victim Awarded $7.1 Million in Damages
Reese v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2024 IL App (1st) 240315-U
Illinois General Assembly: 735 ILCS 5/13-213 — Product Liability Statute of Repose
Illinois General Assembly: 735 ILCS 5/2-2106 — Product Warnings and Instructions
