Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n, Inc. , 342 Ill. App. 3d 95 ( 2003 )

JUSTICE WOLFSON,

specially concurring:

The majority concludes “[a]n increased risk of future harm standing alone is insufficient to support an award of damages under the theories of strict product liability, negligence [citation], and willful and wanton misconduct.” 342 Ill. App. 3d at 101. Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483 (2002), holds that increased risk of future harm is a present injury. The supreme court was not asked to decide and did not decide whether any other injury was required before a jury could be instructed on increased risk of harm. Nor are we required to decide the issue in this case since plaintiffs specifically disclaim any interest in it. I would leave it for another day, when the issue would be fully briefed.