Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kossifos v. Louden Machinery Co.

FEBRUARY 13, 1974.

JOHN KOSSIFOS, PLAINTIFF,

v.

THE LOUDEN MACHINERY COMPANY, DEFENDANT — (THE LOUDEN MACHINERY COMPANY, COUNTERPLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

JOHN MORRELL & COMPANY, COUNTERDEFENDANT-APPELLEE.)



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. NICHOLAS J. BUA, Judge, presiding.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE HAYES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Rehearing denied September 27, 1974.

I.

This appeal arises from a lower court order sustaining intervening plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim seeking indemnification from intervening plaintiff.

Plaintiff, John Kossifos (hereafter Kossifos), filed an amended complaint against the Louden Machinery Company, defendant and counterclaimant (hereafter Louden), alleging that he was an employee of the John Morrell Company, intervening plaintiff and counterdefendant (hereafter Morrell), and that, as a direct and proximate result of certain enumerated unreasonably dangerous conditions in certain equipment sold by Louden to Morrell, he suffered severe and permanent injuries. Specifically, Kossifos stated:

"That at the time and place aforesaid, the said equipment, * * * designed, manufactured, distributed and sold by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer, was at the time of its manufacture and at the time it left the possession or control of the defendant herein, unreasonably dangerous, by reason of one or more of the following defects or conditions of the said equipment:

(a) The said equipment was too heavy to be supported by the overhead suspension system;

(b) The said equipment was improperly designed, so as to support the racks and the traveling cage;

(c) The said equipment was not metalurgically [sic] sound, to support the traveling cage;

(d) The said equipment was improperly designed, so as to prevent the traveling cage from sliding off the rail;

(e) The said equipment was improperly designed in that it had no `stops' so as to prevent the traveling cage from sliding off the rail;

(f) The said equipment was improperly designed, in that the `splices' were not strong enough to support the traveling cage;

(g) The said `splices' were metalurgically [sic] unsound, in order to support the traveling cage;

(h) The said equipment was manufactured, distributed, and sold, without the defendant promulgating proper ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.