Court Opinion

ID: 9710186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:04:01.933424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:54.957592
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CHAPMAN, dissenting: I agree with the majority that the question of whether there is a duty to warn is one of law, and I also agree that these facts imposed a duty to warn. The question of whether that duty has been breached is, however, one of fact. (Huff v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co. (1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 1091, 419 N.E.2d 561.) When we consider whether the duty has been breached, we are really considering the adequacy of the warning. The majority concludes: "In this court’s opinion, such limited and neutral instructions are not enough to constitute adequate warning of the danger to potential users of the unit.” (258 Ill. App. 3d at 847.) While I might agree with the majority’s conclusion, the jury did not. Although the majority states that it "approach[es] this record on the adequacy of warning not as a second jury” (258 Ill. App. 3d at 847), its earlier conclusion of inadequacy belies this statement. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.