Ebbert v. Vulcan Iron Works, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 August 1980
• Docket Number: No. 80-8,80-8
• Citation: 42 Ill.Dec. 617,87 Ill.App.3d 74,409 N.E.2d 112
• Parties: , 42 Ill.Dec. 617 Robert EBBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VULCAN IRON WORKS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 112

409 N.E.2d 112

87 Ill.App.3d 74, 42 Ill.Dec. 617

Robert EBBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VULCAN IRON WORKS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80-8.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Aug. 12, 1980.

Gary L. Clark, Allen, Clark & Cullinan, Ltd., Peoria, for plaintiff-appellant.

W. Thomas Johnston, McConnell, Kennedy, Quinn & Johnston, Peoria, for defendant-appellee.

STOUDER, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Robert Ebbert, from a judgment in favor of the defendant, Vulcan Iron Works, Inc., following the return of a jury verdict also in favor of the defendant. The underlying cause is a products liability action against the defendant, a manufacturer of a pile driver, based on a strict liability theory. In this appeal, the only issue presented for review is that, contrary to the jury's verdict, the liability of the defendant was established by the evidence as a matter of law.

The plaintiff, who operated the air compressor which supplied the power to the pile driver, was injured on the job site when, while the plaintiff was standing ten to twelve feet from the pile driver and the hammer of the pile driver was raised some thirty-five feet in the air, a two inch air hose disconnected from the pile driver and struck the plaintiff in the head. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the pile driver was unreasonably dangerous because: (1) no safety device was provided to restrain the air hose in the event it came loose; (2) there was no safety device at the connection; (3) there were no adequate warnings on the pile driver concerning the possible danger in the event the hose became loose; and (4) there were no adequate instructions as to the method for attaching the hose.

The basic physical facts underlying this controversy are undisputed. There is extensive evidence presented by both parties describing the construction and operation of the pile driver, its connection to an air compressor and the hazards of an unrestrained air hose which becomes uncoupled from the machine during operations. Experts testified for each party concerning the design of the machine, methods of attaching restraining chains or cables to the air or steam hose line as well as the adequacy of the warnings and advice in the instruction manual.

In an action based on strict products liability, the plaintiff must allege and prove that his injuries were proximately caused by a condition or defect in the defendant's product which was unreasonably dangerous and that the unreasonably dangerous condition or defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control. (Peterson v. B/W Controls, Inc. (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 1026, 9 Ill.Dec. 30, 366 N.E.2d 144). As the plaintiff's brief points out, although there are four separate allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff's contentions can be reduced to two. The defendant should be held strictly liable for failing to provide a safety restraint for the hose or for failing to provide an adequate warning.

Not only is a manufacturer held to the degree and knowledge of skill of the expert, but it also has a nondelegable duty to make its product safe. (Anderson v. Hyster Company (1979), 74 Ill.2d 364, 24 Ill.Dec. 549, 385 N.E.2d 690). An unreasonably dangerous design defect can be demonstrated by evidence that the product fails to conform to accepted design standards or by evidence of the availability or feasibility of alternative designs. (Anderson v. Hyster Company (1979), 74 Ill.2d 364, 24 Ill.Dec. 549, 385 N.E.2d 690). The question of what is unreasonably dangerous is usually a jury question (Kerns v. Engelke (1979), 76 Ill.2d 154, 28 Ill.Dec....