Court Opinion

ID: 9488172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:38:17.237419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:44.179271
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The issue of whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact with respect to the liability of Hixon is indeed a close one. The majority’s analysis is a thoughtful one. It seems to me, however, that Illinois would, in all likelihood, classify the pole in question as a simple implement to which the risk-utility test is inapplicable. See Scoby v. Vulcan-Hart Corp., 211 Ill.App.3d 106, 155 Ill.Dec. 536, 538-40, 569 N.E.2d 1147, 1149-51 (Ill.App.Ct.1991). It seems clear that to the user, the metal pole poses special risks. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.