(DOWNLOAD) "Harris v. Bethlehem Steel Corp." by Illinois Appellate Court — First District (5Th Division) Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Harris v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
- Author : Illinois Appellate Court — First District (5Th Division) Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part
- Release Date : January 13, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the circuit court which granted the motions for summary judgment of defendants Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Industrial Sling Company. Defendant Northern Engineering Corporation is not a party to this appeal. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him because expert testimony cannot provide a basis for overcoming the sufficiency of allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff also argues that the expert's opinion in the instant case did not eliminate all genuine issues of material fact set up by the complaint. For the reasons which follow, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. Count I of plaintiff's unverified second amended complaint alleged that defendants manufactured and distributed cable to plaintiff's employer and that the cable was used on a crane to hold a metal block weighing between 400 and 500 pounds. Plaintiff alleged that the cable was designed and intended for this use and that the cable broke and severed, causing him personal injury. Count I of the second amended complaint sought recovery under a strict products liability theory, alleging in paragraph 7 three alternative factual bases for recovery. These were that the cable was defective at the time that it left the defendants' possession and control in: (a) failing to support a load well within its capacity; (b) failing to carry such a load due to lack of metallurgic integrity; and (c) failing to withstand normal wear and tear in normal use so as to support a load well within its capacity. The defendants filed separate answers denying the material allegations of the second amended complaint.