Opinion
No. 00 C 3278
November 27, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
When he was three years old, James Miles, III ingested Drano, a drain cleaner that is manufactured and sold by defendant S.C. Johnson Son, Inc. ("Johnson"). Plaintiffs have sued defendants under a variety of theories to recover for the injuries sustained by Miles. Johnson has filed a counterclaim for contribution against Ragsdell, Miles' mother, claiming that the child's injuries were the proximate result of her willful and wanton misconduct. Ragsdell has filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the counterclaim. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
The Legal Standard
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016, 1019 (7th Cir. 1992). No claim will be dismissed unless "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).
Discussion
To state a claim for willful and wanton conduct, Johnson must allege that Ragsdell intentionally injured Miles or that she acted with a "reckless disregard for [his] safety. . . , such as a failure, after knowledge of impending danger, to exercise ordinary care to prevent it or a failure to discover the danger through recklessness, or carelessness when it could have been discovered by ordinary care." O'Brien v. Township High Sch. Dist. 214, 83 Ill.2d 462, 469, 415 N.E.2d 1015, 1018 (Ill. 1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Johnson alleges that Ragsdell stored the Drano container in an unlocked kitchen cabinet that was only one foot from the ground despite product warnings that Drano: (1) was poison; (2) could be harmful or fatal if swallowed; and (3) should be stored on a high shelf or in a locked cabinet, out of the reach of children. (Counterclaim ¶¶ 5, Ba, 8b.) Johnson also alleges that Ragsdell willfully and wantonly "fail[ed] to properly and adequately attend to, maintain and supervise the activities of her child." (Id. ¶ 8c.) According to Johnson, these allegations show that Ragsdell recklessly disregarded the hazards Drano posed to Miles by storing it within his reach and giving him unsupervised access to it.
Those allegations are necessary, but not sufficient, to state a contribution counterclaim for willful and wanton conduct in this case. Given the allegations of the first amended complaint, Johnson can be held liable to Miles, and thus can seek contribution from Ragsdell, only if the Drano container is proven to be defective. Ragsdell, in turn, can be liable for contribution under a willful and wanton theory only if she knew the Drano container was defective and recklessly disregarded the danger that it posed to her son. Thus, even if Ragsdell improperly stored the Drano and improperly supervised her son, as Johnson alleges, she would be liable for contribution only if she knew, when she engaged in those acts, that the Drano container was defective. Johnson does not allege that Ragsdell had such knowledge. As a result, its contribution counterclaim for willful and wanton conduct must be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Julia Ragsdell's motion to dismiss S.C. Johnson Son, Inc.'s counterclaim for willful and wanton conduct is granted. Johnson has fourteen days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to amend the counterclaim, if it can do so and remain in compliance with Rule 11. If no amendment is filed in the time allowed, the counterclaim will be dismissed with prejudice.