roll bar (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

roll bar in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2004 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Lamkin v. Townergreen
ill · 1990 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004Plaintiff contends it was reasonably foreseeable that Grand Prairie would remove the roll bar and, therefore, using the loader without the roll bar was “use[ ] in [a] *** reasonably foreseeable manner.” See Lamkin, 138 Ill. 2d at 529 , 563 N.E.2d at 457 .

2004Plaintiff contends it was reasonably foreseeable that Grand Prairie would remove the roll bar and, therefore, using the loader without the roll bar was “use[ ] in [a] *** reasonably foreseeable manner.” See Lamkin, 138 Ill. 2d at 529 , 563 N.E.2d at 457 .

24
DeArmond v. Hoover Ball & Bearinggreen
illappct · 1980 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004Although it did not take long to remove the roll bar, it was heavy work and apparently a major alteration of the loader, which one cannot reasonably expect Richland to have foreseen (see DeArmond, 86 Ill.

2004Although it did not take long to remove the roll bar, it was heavy work and apparently a major alteration of the loader, which one cannot reasonably expect Richland to have foreseen (see DeArmond , 86 Ill.

22
Scoby v. Vulcan-Hart Corp.green
illappct · 1991 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004In so doing, we first discussed our supreme court's decision in Lamkin, 138 Ill.2d at 529 , 150 Ill.Dec. 562 , 563 N.E.2d at 457 , and then wrote the following: "In Scoby, 211 Ill.App.3d at 109 [ 155 Ill.Dec. 536 ], 569 N.E.2d at 1149 , we called the first method, in the passage quoted above, the `consumer-user contemplation test' and the second method the `danger-utility test.' We held that if the dangerous propensity of the product was obvious and the `mechanism involved' was simple, a court should apply the consumer-user contemplation test rather than the danger-utility test.

2004In so doing, we first discussed our supreme court's decision in Lamkin, 138 Ill.2d at 529 , 150 Ill.Dec. 562 , 563 N.E.2d at 457 , and then wrote the following: "In Scoby, 211 Ill.App.3d at 109 [ 155 Ill.Dec. 536 ], 569 N.E.2d at 1149 , we called the first method, in the passage quoted above, the `consumer-user contemplation test' and the second method the `danger-utility test.' We held that if the dangerous propensity of the product was obvious and the `mechanism involved' was simple, a court should apply the consumer-user contemplation test rather than the danger-utility test.

14

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Miller v. Dvornik green
illappct · 1986
2 sentences

2004App. 3d 883 , 501 N.E.2d 160 (1986), and section 402 of the Restatement of Torts (Restatement of Torts § 402 (1948 Supp.)), the trial court held that having received, from the manufacturer, a complete and fully assembled loader, Richland had no duty to modify the roll bar before selling the loader to Grand Prairie, even though (as plaintiff alleged) Richland knew, or should have known, that Grand Prairie would use the loader in a building with a low ceiling.

2004App. 3d 883 , 501 N.E.2d 160 (1986), and section 402 of the Restatement of Torts (Restatement of Torts §402 (1948 Supp.)), the trial court held that having received, from the manufacturer, a complete and fully assembled loader, Richland had no duty to modify the roll bar before selling the loader to Grand Prairie, even though (as plaintiff alleged) Richland knew, or should have known, that Grand Prairie would use the loader in a building with a low ceiling.

22004–2004
Bates v. Richland Sales Corp. green
illappct · 2004
2 sentences

2004App. 3d at 227 , 803 N.E.2d at 982 , the plaintiffs coworkers removed the manufacturer-installed protective roll bar of a Wrangler loader (to which a sales manager of the manufacturer testified: “it was ‘totally inconceivable’ that anyone would remove the roll bar; it offended common sense, like removing a seatbelt”), and the plaintiff then backed up the loader against one of the rods in a building, crushing himself to death.

2004This court observed “[a]n ordinary consumer would have fully expected that if this powerful machine, without a roll bar, pushed his or her body against an unyielding object, injury could result.” Bates, 346 Ill.

22004–2004
McMahon v. City of Chicago green
illappct · 2003
2 sentences

2004The legal sufficiency of a complaint depends on well-pleaded facts rather than conclusions (McMahon v. City of Chicago, 339 Ill.

2004The legal sufficiency of a complaint depends on well-pleaded facts rather than conclusions ( McMahon v. City of Chicago , 339 Ill.

22004–2004
Camenzind v. Freeland Furniture Co. green
· 1918
1 sentence

1988Claimant places great reliance on the case of Camenzind v. Freeland Furniture Company (1918), 89 Oregon 158, 174 Pac. 139 .

11988–1988

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 5 (1988–2004) CA 4 (2002–2019) OH 3 (1981–2004) TX 2 (1980–1989) MO 2 (1975–1984)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check