In Bollmeier v. Ford Motor Company, 130 Ill. App. 2d 844, 265 N.E.2d 212 (Ill. App. 1970), the plaintiff's minor son was injured when the Ford Thunderbird he was driving ran off the road. He said that the car did not respond when he tried to steer the vehicle around a curve. The car had been delivered in April, 1966, roughly three months before the accident. From that point, the Bollmeiers "observed a vibration which could be seen and felt in the steering column and the steering wheel." They heard a "humming noise" described as "similar to a swarm of bees or the sound of snow tires." Bollmeier, 265 N.E.2d at 213. The car had about 342 miles on the odometer when Mr. Bollmeier took it back to the dealer. The salesman recognized that there was a problem, and measures were taken to fix the vibration problems. At the time of the accident, the car had about 4400 miles. Bollmeier, 265 N.E.2d at 213-14. Plaintiff filed an action in strict liability. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for directed verdicts at the close of the evidence, and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the directed verdict on the negligence count, but reversed that disposition on the strict liability/warranty counts. The trial court had ruled that the plaintiffs were required to prove a specific defect, and that they had failed to prove a defect in the steering mechanism or automobile that caused the injuries. The Illinois intermediate appellate court recited the pertinent issue to be "whether in a suit for breach of implied warranty or strict tort liability it is necessary to prove the specific defect in the product which caused the injury either by direct or circumstantial evidence." Bollmeier v. Ford Motor Company, 265 N.E.2d at 215. The court noted that, in formulating the requirements for a products liability case, the Illinois Supreme Court had not indicated "that proof of the specific defect which causes the product to be in an unreasonably dangerous condition is necessary." Id. at 215-16 (citing Suvada v. White Motor Company, 32 Ill. 2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188 (Ill. 1965)). Drawing on cases in which circumstantial evidence has been sufficient, the Bollmeier court said: Therefore, direct or circumstantial evidence which tends to prove that the product failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in the light of its nature and intended function, such as proof of a malfunction which tends to exclude other extrinsic causes, is sufficient to make out a prima facie case on this issue. Id. at 217. The court also observed: In the present case there was substantial evidence that there was some malfunction in the car which manifested itself in a vibration in the steering. There was also expert testimony that this vibration could cause a metal failure or loosening of bolts which could occur in a steering mechanism. Although there was no prior complaint about the steering in the car as to its responsiveness, there was evidence by the driver that the car failed to respond when he attempted to negotiate a curve to the left. We believe that from the evidence submitted up to this point in the case, the jury could have properly concluded that the automobile failed to perform in the manner that would reasonably have been expected and that this failure caused the plaintiff's injury. The fact that someone turned the steering and the wheels responded when the car was hoisted from the ground is not conclusive on the issue of a defective condition, but was some evidence which could have been considered by the jury. Bollmeier v. Ford Motor Company, 265 N.E.2d at 217-18.