Not every product injury comes from a flaw in the design or the factory. Sometimes the problem is what the maker did not say, or what it promised and did not deliver. Those are the two claims in this guide: failure to warn and breach of warranty. They follow different rules and different deadlines.
Recalls and deadlines at a glance
Two different claims
Failure to warn
The product carried a danger the maker knew or should have known about, and the warning or instructions were missing or inadequate.
Breach of warranty
The product did not live up to a promise, either one the seller made or one the law implies, such as being fit for ordinary use.
Failure to warn
A warning claim says the product was unreasonably dangerous because it came without adequate warnings or instructions. In Illinois, the Supreme Court held in Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., 79 Ill. 2d 26 (1980), that in a strict liability warning claim the plaintiff must show the maker knew or should have known of the danger. (Woodill opinion) For prescription drugs, Illinois follows the “learned intermediary” rule: the maker generally satisfies its duty by warning the prescribing doctor rather than the patient. (Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital (1987)) And a danger being obvious is not an automatic defense; in Calles the Supreme Court treated obviousness as one factor in the balancing for design claims.
Warnings are also harder to prove than people expect. A manufacturer will say its label was adequate, or that more warnings would not have been read. Whether a warning would have changed what the injured person did is often a central fight.
Breach of warranty
A warranty claim treats the sale as a promise. Illinois follows the Uniform Commercial Code, found at 810 ILCS 5/2-313 and following. An express warranty comes from an affirmation or description that is part of the basis of the bargain (UCC 2-313). The implied warranty of merchantability means goods must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which they are used (UCC 2-314). The implied warranty of fitness applies when the seller knows the buyer’s particular purpose and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill (UCC 2-315).
Three practical points. First, the buyer generally must notify the seller of a breach within a reasonable time after discovering it (UCC 2-607). Second, a sale-of-goods claim generally must be filed within four years, generally counted from delivery rather than from the injury (UCC 2-725), but an injury claim should be planned around the shorter two-year personal injury deadline. Third, a limit on damages for injury to the person in consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable (UCC 2-719), so a disclaimer on the box is not always the end of the matter.
On who can be sued, the Illinois Supreme Court held in Berry v. G.D. Searle & Co., 56 Ill. 2d 548 (1974), that a person injured by a product can sue the remote manufacturer on an implied warranty theory without a direct sale between them. Later decisions limit that rule for purely economic loss. (Berry opinion) For consumer products with a written warranty, the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act also lets a successful consumer recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. (15 U.S.C. 2310)
If a warning or promise failed you
- Keep the product and packagingLabel, manual, box and receipt are evidence of what was said.
- Save the promisePhotograph ads, product pages and listings showing what was claimed.
- Note the dateWrite down when you bought it and when you were hurt.
- Tell the seller in writingA prompt, written notice helps a warranty claim.
Frequently asked questions
Is a warning label enough to defend a claim?
Not by itself. Whether the warning was adequate, and whether the maker knew or should have known of the danger, are questions the evidence decides.
Can I bring a warranty claim without a lawyer’s help?
You can, but injury claims have short deadlines and technical notice rules. Speaking with a lawyer early protects them.
Does a disclaimer in the fine print end my claim?
Not automatically. Illinois treats a limit on damages for personal injury from consumer goods as prima facie unconscionable.
Related guides: Strict liability in Illinois product cases; Design defect vs manufacturing defect; Punitive damages in product liability cases; Illinois product liability lawyers.
Statistics and law reviewed October 23, 2026. This article is general information, not legal advice. Statutes, rules and court decisions change, and every case depends on its facts.
Hurt by a product with a bad warning or a broken promise? Call (312) 346-4262 for a free consultation. There is no fee unless we win.
Sources
- CPSC, 2025 safety accomplishments news release (Jan. 20, 2026)
- Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., 79 Ill. 2d 26 (1980)
- Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507 (1987)
- Berry v. G.D. Searle & Co., 56 Ill. 2d 548 (1974)
- UCC 2-313, 2-314, 2-315, 2-607, 2-719 and 2-725 (uniform text; Illinois codifies the UCC at 810 ILCS 5/2)
- 15 U.S.C. 2310, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
- 735 ILCS 5/13-202
