Court Opinion

ID: 9722203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:20:08.476845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:31.867337
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE TRAPP specially concurring: Upon the issues raised under Count II in products liability, it is suggested that the facts here bring this case within the ambit of the view expressed in my special concurrence in Lewis v. Stran Steel Corp., 6 Ill. App.3d 142, 285 N.E.2d 631. Here, Jansen purchased the equipment and operated it for some two years without any form of shield or guard on the tumbling rod or its connections. It strains reasonable credulity to assert that the purchaser was unaware of the potential hazard. This is so whether or not there exists a conflict of testimony as to whether Kehrer urged that Jansen purchase the protective devices. In the essence of definition, the facts do not establish a case of products liability within the scope of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, par, 402A. I also concur in the views expressed in the principal opinion.