2-2106.Provision of written warnings to users of product; nonliability.
Article II. Civil Practice · Part 21. Product Liability · Last amended 1995 · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceSection 2-2106 sets four ways a manufacturer or seller can show a product's warnings were adequate or that no warning was required, covering written notice to users, industry standards, obvious or common-knowledge risks, and dangers unknowable when the product left the manufacturer's control.
(a)The warning, instructing, or labeling of a product or
specific product component shall be deemed to be adequate if pamphlets, booklets, labels, or other written warnings were provided that gave adequate notice to reasonably anticipated users or knowledgeable intermediaries of the material risks of injury, death, or property damage connected with the reasonably anticipated use of the product and instructions as to the reasonably anticipated uses, applications, or limitations of the product anticipated by the defendant.
(b)In the defense of a product liability action, warnings, instructions or labeling shall be deemed to be adequate if the warnings, instructions or labels furnished with the product were in conformity with the generally recognized standards in the industry at the time the product was distributed into the stream of commerce.
(c)Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), a defendant shall not be liable for failure to warn of material risks that were obvious to a reasonably prudent product user and material risks that were a matter of common knowledge to persons in the same position as or similar positions to that of the plaintiff in a product liability action.
(d)In any product liability action brought against a manufacturer or product seller for harm allegedly caused by a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, a defendant manufacturer or product seller shall not be liable if, at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, the knowledge of the danger that caused the harm was not reasonably available or obtainable in light of existing scientific, technical, or medical information.
Plain-English Summary
Subsection (a) defines adequate warning by what it accomplishes: if pamphlets, booklets, labels, or other written warnings gave reasonably anticipated users or knowledgeable intermediaries adequate notice of the material risks of injury, death, or property damage connected with the product's reasonably anticipated use, along with instructions on its reasonably anticipated uses, applications, or limitations, the warning is deemed adequate.
Subsection (b) offers a separate route to the same conclusion in defending a product liability action: warnings, instructions, or labeling are deemed adequate if they conformed to the generally recognized standards in the industry at the time the product entered the stream of commerce.
Subsection (c) removes any duty to warn of risks that were obvious to a reasonably prudent product user, or that were a matter of common knowledge to people in the plaintiff's position. Subsection (d) adds a fourth defense: a manufacturer or seller isn't liable for failing to warn of a danger if, at the time the product left the manufacturer's control, knowledge of that danger wasn't reasonably available or obtainable given the existing scientific, technical, or medical information.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a product warning "adequate" under subsection (a)?
Written warnings — pamphlets, booklets, labels, or similar materials — that give reasonably anticipated users or knowledgeable intermediaries adequate notice of the material risks connected with the product's reasonably anticipated use, plus instructions on its anticipated uses, applications, or limitations.
Can a manufacturer defend a failure-to-warn claim by pointing to industry standards?
Yes. Subsection (b) deems warnings, instructions, or labeling adequate if they conformed to the generally recognized standards in the industry at the time the product was distributed into commerce.
Does a manufacturer have to warn about risks that are obvious?
No. Subsection (c) removes liability for failing to warn of risks that were obvious to a reasonably prudent product user, or that were a matter of common knowledge to people in the plaintiff's position.
What is the defense in subsection (d) about unknowable dangers?
A defendant isn't liable for a failure to warn if, at the time the product left the manufacturer's control, the knowledge of the danger causing the harm wasn't reasonably available or obtainable given the scientific, technical, or medical information that existed then.
Who has to receive the warning for it to count as adequate?
Reasonably anticipated users of the product, or knowledgeable intermediaries who stand between the manufacturer and the ultimate user.
Amendment History
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Compiled Statutes, published by the
Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois General Assembly / Legislative Reference Bureau. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:failure to warn defense illinois product liabilityadequate warning product liability illinoisstate of the art defense illinoisobvious danger no duty to warn illinois