Court Opinion

ID: 9523372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:40:53.552779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:10.836192
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. The majority correctly notes that every authority which it cites supports a result contrary to that achieved by its opinion and then without the aid of either precedent or reasoning proceeds to hold that the occurrence alleged in plaintiff’s second amended complaint was not “objectively reasonable to expect.” In addition to those quoted in the majority opinion, the complaint contains the following allegations: “6. The said forage wagon as manufactured by the Defendant was unreasonably dangerous as a result of one or more or a combination of all of the following conditions: (a) Two conveyor belts or screens which moved slowly when the forage wagon was in operation extended beyond the front end of the forage wagon and were there exposed as they turned or revolved around numerous wheels and cogs and passed under the steel end of the forage wagon; (b) No shield, guard, or other protective device or casing designed to prevent persons from coming in contact with the conveyor belts or screens extending beyond the front end of the forage wagon and passing beneath the steel end of the said forage wagon were attached to or affixed to the said forage wagon; (c) No mirrors or other devices were affixed or attached to the said forage wagon to permit persons working at the back end or sides of the said forage wagon to view the general area where the exposed conveyor belts or screens were situated at the front end of the said forage wagon and thereby permit such persons to determine if anyone was approaching or in close proximity to the exposed conveyor belts or screens and were endangered therefrom; (d) The said forage wagon was not equipped with any bolts, hinges, holes, latches, or designed in any other manner to permit any shield, guard, or other protective device or casing to be affixed or attached to the said wagon and thereby cover the exposed conveyor belts or screens extending beyond the front end of the said forage wagon and thereby protect persons from coming in contact with same; (e) No signs, warnings, or other type notices were affixed to or attached to the said forage wagon warning of the danger presented by the exposed conveyor belts or screens at the front end of the said forage wagon. ' 7. At some time subsequent to the manufacture of the said forage wagon by the Defendant, the forage wagon left the Defendant’s control at which time the conditions above stated in Paragraph 6 then and there existed.” The sole question before us is the sufficiency of the second amended complaint. Clearly it alleged conditions which made the wagon unreasonably dangerous, that these conditions existed when the wagon left defendant’s control, and that one or more of these unreasonably dangerous conditions proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. Under Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill.2d 612, the complaint stated a cause of action. The majority recognizes that the only foreseeability question presented on this record is whether it is reasonably foreseeable that someone might be injured by reason of coming into contact with the inadequately protected and unreasonably dangerous mechanism. This question is properly one for a jury and should not be decided as a question of law. Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co., 42 Ill.2d 339. I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court.