*1 508 statute, it was we conclude that
stаtutory enactment. view of the not for the bond convictions court to consider the forfeitures improper sentence within purpose determining appropriate limits Code. in the Motor Vehicle prescribed by legislature However, dis are affirmed. our the Circuit Court judgments as an viewed endorsement position appeal should indefinitely suspend judgment order portion purports leaving charge fine upon finding guilty imposed beyond is void as of the order portion the scene an accident. That v. Bragg, Park Forest Village of the court. See jurisdiction 868; v. Adams People N.E.2d 17. N.E.2d affirmed. Judgments
GOLDBERG, BURKE, J., J., concur. P. and next Minor, mother her Horwitz, Horwttz, Lillian Harvey friend, father, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Horwitz, Hospital al., et Defendants-Appellees. Michael Reese 53107;
(No. 30, 1970. First District October *2 DIERINGER, J., dissenting. P. A. for Dooley, Chicago, appellant.
James E. and Richard Lord, Brook, Milwid A. Chicago, Bissell & (Stephen Mueller, of counsel,) appellees.
ORDER 3, 1972 May filed a reply Plaintiff filed a Defendants rehearing. petition a rehear- allowed turn filed a thereto. We petition reply Argument. On our for Oral ing. own motion we rescheduled the matter case, adhere to the After and further consideration of the thorough taken in the positions filed. opinion previously and filed filed on opinion adopted October will be again as the court.
ADESKO, BURMAN, concurring. J., J.:
DIERINGER, P. dissenting. J., оf the court: delivered the
Mr. ADESKO JUSTICE and Horwitz, Reese Plaintiff, Hospital sued defendant Michael Janet Inc., caused allegedly damages for Company, defendant Air Reduction manu- defective company’s the treatment and the by negligent hospital’s old while a three day facture of an incubator in which she was placed case, eff- the judge At the trial plaintiff’s at the close patient hospital. a ver- a returned ected verdict the defendant manufacturer. thereon, entered dict for the defendant From the judgments hospital. plaintiff appeals. direct refusing trial court erred in that the (1)
Plaintiff maintains all the evidence at the close of the against hospital for plaintiff a verdict of defense to plaintiff’s proof where no liability on issue a for the made; directing that the trial court erred (2) was case; verdict was (3) close of plaintiff’s manufacturer court and that the trial (4) of the evidence weight the manifest behalf on objection certain over admitting evidence erred in error it will be In order to consider these assignments of defendants. detail. the evidence in some to review necessary time Lash, a long prac- Abraham Horwitz was delivered 10, 1947, around on titioner in Hospital, May obstetrics Michael Reese color, found baby’s 9:00 A.M. Dr. he examined Lash testified that re- and all orifices and found lustily, lungs she cried listened to the delivered had been actions of the infant normal. Horwitz Although baby grams, after full weighed 37 week gestation period, lbs., oz., classified lbs. since her under 5Vz and weight Rosenblum, ex- after premature baby. Philip The pediatrician, Dr. reflexes, reflex, everything the child’s found amining the Moro especially order, but still child incubator requested placed soon as beds in possible since she was incubator Because the premature. premature station a Hess were all child was occupied, placed incubator in the nursery. incubator, on was administered
While the child was in oxygen 11, as intervals. May periodic 10 and needed and the bed was heated at On 12 had May weight grams the child’s had fallen to 1910 May Miss increased to 2000 made grams. According May on report Lorentz, P.M., May nursing director at the at about 4:30 hospital, life, the third thereafter the child’s day feeding child took cyanotic became (blue in so had be administered. color) oxygen about P.M., At 10:00 to the another according report, nurse reported very baby lethargic, taking and not cold to the touch apathetic, well. feedings cold, Because the felt heat was on in the Hess baby turned heat, incubator to the fourth duty came on graduate nurse who at 11:30 P.M. was warned to watch the adjusted bed since it been to the fourth A.M., The baby heat. was fed at 12:00 midnight, 3:00 A.M., time, 6:00 and each according duty, nurse on graduate baby still felt cold to touch. The night states: takes report formula “Baby listless, poorly, very responds to stimuli.” It noted that poorly must be this evidence comes from a specially prepared made director nursing on May and not from tire record. hospital record, hospital which should contain all matters concerning the care of a patient, reveals none above night ocсurrences May 12-13. Even the child’s 12-13 was night May not noted in the record. A.M.,
At 7:30 when the staff came day duty, the head nurse dis- *4 baby covered was having convulsions and called in the resident arrival, pediatrics. Upon Dr. Hyman Morris found the infant in the incu- bator cyanotic, at twitching, mouth, foaming dehydrated and indicated a depressed fontanel. Morris Dr. touched the incubator and found it to be uncomfortably hot. doctor normally testified that is only incubator warm. comfortably was temperature Her
The child was removed from the incubator. his senior Morris then called rectally taken and found to be 102°. Dr. he found resident in Martin Sachs. Dr. Sachs testified pediatrics, Dr. and mouth, the mouth child blue around frothing twitching, and she dry. given glucose Since looked apparently dehydrated, and by was 99° 11:00 phenobarbital. By the child’s A.M. noon 98°. continued have
During evening of the child May of pheno- convulsions and a result the administration twitching 1947, found the barbital was An examination on May continued. May child’s By fontanel full and her to 2020 grams. increased weight it was to her from the grams hospital when she was released in parents “good grams. condition” was 2175 weight life, has had severe medical Throughout her entire Horwitz As turn in food, a child had could not problems. difficulty retaining crawl, bed and had a on the side. She could slight right paralysis did not walk 4% has She difficulty speaking. until old and years schools, has most of her life in institutes and spent hospitals laboratory her brain anti-convulsive and stimulation of therapy, therapy speech cells. Various doctors who condition testified case described Janet’s as a central retarda- system disorder, nervous cerebral and mental palsy tion. Rosenblum, testified witnesses, Morris, Sachs and
Plaintiff’s Dr. Dr. Dr. convulsions, foaming condition varying degrees May Janet’s with the mouth, connected directly dehydration cyanosis that these the opinion incubator. Dr. Sachs overheating expressed Gibbs, a neuro Frederick conditions could cause damage. brain Dr. could have been surgeon, might that the incubator incident testified Furthermore, nurse the cause of of ill plaintiff’s being. condition nursing Lorentz’s (namely report, [*] was taken [*] * circumstances plaintiff’s no thermometer routinely Exhibit surrounding in the incubator 1A, once found “several the care of in 24 hours * the baby evidences * * * ## the baby’s ** (and) poor * loose Armed with routines nursery.” and lack routines in the newborn admissions, maintains expert testimony and these trial court for plaintiff erred to direct a verdict refusing no at the where close of on the issue of liability all the evidence defense to made. proof pediatric of three testimony
Defendant a defense offered as neurology Perlstein, pediatric specialists, specialist Meyer A. age reach they before diseases in children occur the brain *5 adolescence, Hisia, profes- in pediatrics Dr. David Y-Yung specialist WHHam Silver- sor at and Dr. Northwestern Medical School University man, School. Medical professor pediatrics University at Columbia doctors, AH which embraced three in response questions to hypothetical their chüd, that in conditions ill testified present being of iU of the condition opinion incubator incident was not the cause intra- The being. described a known pediatric syndrome specialists de- retardation, uterine and described in growth great unknown in 1947 tail in the last six this re- or seven Most authorities believe years. sults from lack of causes nourishment of the in the womb which baby birth for a fuU term and an weight baby organic under-develop- low testified that 50 to including ment the brain. One of the pediatricians of these babies have mental retardation since intrauterine percent growth failure babies have low blood and as a result the sugars baby lacks nutrients necessary for the brain. Low blood or the sugar occurs in hypoglycemia syndrome babies around 48 to 72 hours оf age. signs failure, early hypoglycemia syndrome respiratory cyanosis, lethargy, convulsions and low blood sugars. pediatricians out that pointed signs these applied She had dif- Horwitz. Janet ficulties, including cyanosis, lethargy and to stimuli poor response prior to the incubator incident. Although 37 weeks baby gestation, weighed only grams, which raises the inference of undernourish- ment. inference is supported by the fact that was substantially Janet smaller sister, than either her child, first brother, child, her a third normal, both since generally second chfld is of greater size than the first. witnesses
Defendant’s were also of the neither the baby’s nor thе alleged dehydration was the cause of her condition out, of ill The doctors being. pointed that although the baby’s tempera- ture was 102° when taken after immediately being removed from the incubator, such a was not high for a enough long enough of time to cause period brain damage. With respect dehydration, the doctors testified that the liquid of the rectum leaves the first with baby the fluid in the brain conserved until everything else is gone and that the baby must lose more than 10 of its percent fluid volume dehydra- before tion can even be detected clinicaHy. Defendant’s witnesses were view Horwitz was not dehydrated sufficiently cause brain because if damage been, she had there would have been a greater weight loss. It is to be noted in regard while the doctors who testified were of the view that dehydration or a high temperature could cause brain injury, none of them explained the degree of tempera- injury. such
ture or to cause required of dehydration amount as the witnesses well of the defendant’s Considering testimony witnesses, refusing err in did not hold that the trial court strenuously Plaintiff direct a verdict for plaintiff hospital. incubator inci- as a result of the argues she sustained some injury dent, and that this incident was due to the have might as it admits in its whatevеr injuries been, verdict which should entitled to a directed slight, however would still since question leave the of causal connection Plaintiff con- would any, ascertain what if she sustained. damages, tends and that the that she entitled to a directed verdict on liability *6 was one of dam- only question which should have been left to the jury ages. of every
The element part cause is essential proximate cause of action for Court has repeatedly The Illinois negligence. Supreme are announced the rule that and cause questions negligence proximate Harris ordinarily questions of fact to decide Furniture (Paul Co. v. 28, 42, Morse 10 Ill.2d v. Yellow Ney 139 N.E.2d 74, 84, 74, Cab Co. the court stated: “The N.E.2d debatable cause, quality issues such as and negligence proximate fact conclusions, that fairminded men reach might emphasize different a fact- appropriateness necessity of such leaving questions finding body.” debatable of an issue such as cause quality proximate ain case involving medical science is As stated especially pronounced. Louis Davidson in G. an article entitled as to Personal In “Testimony juries” in the 1956 Illinois 390, Law Forum 421: page as ivory do dwell in an tower. know do They lay-
“The courts not certain; is exact and quali- men that mеdical science not equally connection; fied often as to causal that factors sharply disagree experts or ac- to be of a condition were not known today known causative ten or The ultimate decision only years ago. causative cepted twenty so, in the to causal connection has been trier reposed, wisely facts.” could be drawn from the evidence conclusions
Since various
refused to
correctly
the trial court
direct
bar,
find that
case
submitted
liability,
accordingly, correctly
the plaintiff
verdict
in plain
differences. We find no merit
to resolve these
the case to the
negli
cases where defendant’s
this case to automobile
tiff’s comparison
condition. For the plain
prior physical
‘aggravated’
gence
to a directed
because the evi
entitled
argue
tiff to
her
physi-
incubator ‘aggravated’
prior
overheated
showed that the
dence
the province
invades
causation which
condition
to presume
cal
Ry.
City
Chicago
fact.
is a question
of causation
jury.
question
274,
Plaintiff’s second
at the close of
case. The plain
manufacturer
plaintiffs
a verdict
Inc., with
defendant,
Air Reduction
charged
tiffs complaint
incubator in which
plaintiff
placed
the manufacture
We find that the
failed to
liability.
strict
liability on
premised
*7
in the Hess bed
settings
as to the
rheostat
specific
evidence
produce
occurrence,
of
purсhase
the date of manufacture
time of the
at the
bed,
defect in the
the condition of
bed,
of the specific
the nature
the
manufacturer, and
failed
consequently,
left the defendant
when it
the bed
in accordance with standards set
her burden of proof
sustain
to
389, 395, 243
Motors
103
N.E.2d
(1968),
v. General
Garofalo
691
v.
Motor
358 Ill.
Plaintiff’s third the plaintiff for the defendant was manifest weight contention, first evidence. with our holding accordance plaintiff’s we find a its question of fact that was presented verdict was not against the of the weight manifest evidence.
Plaintiff’s court erred in fourth contention the trial is (a) permitting a hypothetical Dr. Silverman to to response testify question counsel, posed by defense question opinion which included of Dr. Hsia elicited in de posed by to a response question hypothetical fense counsel to Dr. Hsia and the cross-examination (b) pеrmitting Dr. Gibbs. contention, the first David Regarding Y-Yung of this Dr. part Hsia an doctor as as an examining well witness who re expert to a sponded hypothetical question of defense counsel. Hsia ex Dr. amined Horwitz in 1966 a and made of mental diagnosis deficiency a minor Hsia’s degree non-specific neurological with involvement. Dr. trial, benefit of the of the child in diagnosis having history him, given in the question incorporated to hypothetical hypo Plaintiff given thetical to Dr. Silverman. incor question objects Dr. Silverman poration diagnosis question to hypothetical since it could elicit an based We upon disagree opinion. with Handge contention on the of Gus and Son plaintiff’s authority T. 201, 203, Industrial Commisson (1965), Ill.2d N.E.2d where the Illinois Supreme Court permitted to one hypothetical question doctor which included the "clinical another doctor so impression” of long as was "within impression realm of circumstantial direct or evidence shown the facts or reasonable find inferences.” We court did trial not err Silverman to permitting respond Dr. question hypothetical which Dr. Hsia’s included since that diagnosis diagnosis was based on doctor’s examination and was "within the of direct or realm circumstantial evidence as the facts shown or reasonable (Armour inferences.” and Co. v. Industrial Commission 471, 475-476, 11 949.) 367 Ill. N.E.2d the second (1937), Regarding part contention, find cross-examination Gibbs rule is that the cross-examination of witness proper. general should be confined to matters out brought direct examination. upon v. Miller 145 Ill. But in (Hansen (1892), 538.) determining scope the matter testified on direct examination the rule is given narrow technical St. R.R. application. (West Chicago Co. v. Reddy true Ill.App. 53.) with especially respect expert medical matters not within testimony, common knowledge and experi ence, is one least methods of satisfactory (Muscarello proof. Peterson 150 N.E.2d We find the cross- examinаtion of specialist he testified to regarding findings *8 direct examination relation the abnormalities described his own announced rule under the broad article infantile palsy proper on cerebral Peterson, in Muscarello supra. reasons, assignments
For of the reject the all foregoing is affirmed. Cook County of the error. Circuit Court of judgment affirmed. Judgment MURPHY,
BURMAN, concur. J., P. J., dissenting: DIERINGER Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE episode unfortunate is another dissent. I respectfully mandamus. had obtain writ trial, plaintiff get To litigation. When ob v. Canel (1966), ex rel. Horwitz (People manufacturer a verdict for the directed trial, Court the Circuit tained solely defended the issue the hospital Although the incubator. the ab incident and between the May relationship casual a 20 holds year child over span, majority conditions normal notwithstanding the hospital, recover entitled is not negligence. of its evidence uncontradicted out, all the evidence points majority correctly
As the opinion hospital not from the anywise listless or abnormal comes infant being records, investigative made after the injury. from but rather not listless prior was was happening Whether the plaintiff negligence, There was child occurrence immaterial. sus- injury. tained some 13, 1947, night prior day 11:00 P.M. the on which May
At overheated, the nurse came on duty was advised night incubator had difficulty she relieved there been nurse with incu- handled three times between 11:00 She P.M. 7:00 bator. unusual about nothing and found A.M. her. 13, 1947, A.M. May
Betwen and 8:00 three physicians 7:00 saw the mouth, foaming at the from convulsing, suffering child hyperpyrexia as well as high body temperature), fontanel, depressed (unusually men, or loss of fluid. These evidences three dehydration one long time and two residents pediatrics medicine, practitioner phase incubator hot. Their was that these found the conditions of the overheating caused directly were She infant incubator. had not, ever investigative report, even suffered from any these overheated in the being conditions before incubator. scene, resident, one on the had
A first been called by nurses who incubator advised him overheated during the night. He so this fact in the record recorded record. for May at 107 baby’s temperature noted the One-half plus. hour after the incu- *9 it, bator was shut off and still in was 102. temperature the child was One with the goes right up doctor testified child’s body temperature off, would re- incubator. After the incubator was shut hot, and cede. Dr. Gibbs it is it had been extremely testified clear pretty brain cells are changes. sensitive to these The very has and is damage severe brain and crippling helpless. virtually level,
At the trial court child’s was that the hospital’s position pres- ent condition age twenty was not due to the incubator It injury. pro- witnesses, duced three all in the field of To of each experts pediatrics. these was propounded question in which were listed all hypothetical tire of the child across a and there handicaps twenty-year span, whether was a between the incubator incident and relationship these conditions. In this set forth hypothetical question, is these facts: At 7:30 A.M. a in
(a) nurse the maternity ward noted the con- baby
vulsing; touch; incubator (b) The was hot to the (c) The child found a dehydrated state, in a fever and running suffering from hyperpyrexia. witnesses, Perlman,
One its Dr. noted specifically that “overheating of an incubator would not be good Hsia, infant.” any another defendant’s expert, stated that specifically this could episode cause con- vulsions. had no hospital thermometer in the incubator to determine
temperature within it. This was in Board violation regulation of Health of the City Chicago pursuant to an ordinance (Municipal Code 9-11) that of the Illinois pur Health enacted Department suant to statute (Ill. Rev. lll½, Stat. is a viola 22). ch. Such par. tion of the statute. facts, from well
Apart specific thеse as those set forth in defendant’s investigative infant, incubator, report, well as the were under control The doctrine of res was thus hospital. ipsa loquitur ap & plicable. Central Illinois Electric Gas (Metz v. 32 Ill.2d (1965), 446; Terminals, Drewiclc v. 345; Interstate 42 Ill.2d Moore (1969), Inc. v. Tea Co. 116 (1969), (1970) Jewel doctrine, Plaintiff instructed, pleaded was so but no time did undertake incident. The explain this burden was on the hospital. majority according to defendant’s position experts the infant suffered intra- hypothetical question from
responding retardation uterine “unknown 1947” cannot the over- growth explain heat, of the incubator. The abnormal hyperpyrеxia, de- heating body of being sequelae all admitted are and convulsions hydration overheated incubator. court, that over- this court or in the trial one either urged,
No has these after-effects. does not cause heating be a directed effect, there cannot held, is that has majority
What the issue determines the because instance any verdict for the plaintiff cause. proximate separate action, cause proximate tort clear is issue of law. distinct Negligence frequently issues. a ver direct held to properly from cases wherein trial courts have been 269; Sughero 350 Ill. Bingheim dict v. plaintiff (Harrison (1932), re have and comts review v. Tea Co. 37 Ill.2d 240), Jewel Calvetti damages. issue of versed for new trials judgments solely on 19; 596; Ill.App. v. Tennes Tennes (1943), Seipp (1967), 47. Olson Authority Ill.App. Transit Chicago *10 There The is significant. Calvetti case (37 596) particularly for trial and remanded a verdict for the defendant which was reversed Seipp on the sole issue of damages. (Calvetti The decision This Court judgment affirmed. Appellate as that Court in the came at the same term Supreme Calvetti case & whereby Pedrick v. Peoria Eastern R.R. 37 Ill.2d Co. (1967), Illinois the evi weigh trial courts the first empowered for time were a dence on motion to direсt a at close of all evidence. verdict than Powers of trial and rather courts have been reviewing expanded, circumscribed, & Pedrick Peoria East within the last five (See: years. Co., 494; ern R.R. Rule Court Supreme 366(a)(5).) verdict, law, an namely, a the court determines issue directing such defendant is The caused negligent. damages that the a But it for jury. grave is This is left to the is error question. another to determine a of law. Here there no question court to permit negligence. damages proxi- issue fact hospital’s its conduct issue between mately caused was the defendant hospital. manufacturer,
In the brochure оf the statements following made: is designed incubator and bed and constructed so as
“The Hess infant maximum, with a to maintain a constant safe a constant air, and a normal average humidity. fresh It but requires supply and regulation. little attention constructed with an inner incubator is chamber into which copper surrounded, inner is is chamber
the bed set. except top, by a one inch water jacket, which is covered material over by insulating is fitted a stainless steel in all three finishing jacket, making walls, with water between the first and second and insulation between the second and third walls.
# # # The electric heating apparatus consists of a 175-watt heating element attached to the bottom of the incubator controlled adjust- able rheostat (heat regulator) mounted on the incu- pilot light bator stand. A reserve element heating is for provided emergency * * *. Over is this fitted an space adjustable frame and a removable hood, finen cover forming of which is purpose to aid in shielding the infant from outside air currents and in controlling cooled, case the room becomes suddenly or use during extremely cold nights.”
The evidence was that the of the bed was to purpose furnish heat with maximum,” a “safe to maintain normal and to furnish humidity oxygen. But after the “safe maximum” heat reached, had been no there was de- vice on it which would shut increase in temperature. Although off further the idea towas determine the heat within the incubator by looking crib, face of there was within the nothing incubator to indicate the level heat attained.
When the court directed a the manufacturer of the incu- bator, “Ladies and he said: gentlemen jury, the Court informs you Chemical and Ohio Manufacturing and the Air Company Re- duction are no Corporation longer case defendants.” This state- ment left it to why were speculate they no longer in this case. Did settle was incubator not they defiсient in any detail? The court jury by misled statement. A judge should say something to the effect that he is dismissing defendant as matter of law and nothing That this error more. affected the further proceedings highly likely. *11 was, effect, in The told that jury the incubator was not deficient in any detail, lead which would the to believe the did nothing wrong. the complaint against manufacturer was based on both strict tort
liability negligence. in and in observes: majority opinion “We find that the failed to evidence as to the plaintiff produce specific settings rheostat on the Hess bed the occurrence, time of the the bed, of date manufacture and purchase the of the nature spe- bed, cific defect in the and the condition of the bed when it left manufacturer, failed to consequently sustain her burden in accordance with standards set proof General v. Garofalo
521 Co., 358 Ill. v. Motor Motors, 389, and Buick Rotche Ill.App.2d 507.” occurrence, at the time rheostat
Certainly specific settings defect, are manufacture, specific date a purchase, of the the date “negli this theory, a action. Under all immaterial in strict tort liability in that his has to prove need be and a gence proved con that the a of the resulted from condition damages product, existed one, dition condition unusually dangerous rel. ex (People the manufacturer’s control.” time left product 180, 196.) General Motors v. Bua Corp. (1967), for In the nature defect is not requisite very things, specific tort recovery. The term a strict “defect” when employed liability & Mfg. action has a distinct v. Bushnell In Dunham meaning. Vaughan 339, 342, Co. 42 Ill.2d is thus defined: (1969), term of the term ‘defect’ in the context products definitions “Although the common upon all of them rest language, law use varying liability which are because products dangerous that those defective premise in light in the manner to be reasonably expected fail to they perform and intended of their nature function.”
It is long thus that so as the fails product perform obvious unreasonably manner in it is intended dangerous and becomes safe, or not exists reasonably defect within the doctrine.
Nor of the when any was there the condition bed obligation prove This, noted, it left the defendant manufacturer. as will was a claim design, designed in that the incubator was so particular defective it did not have it to be off reached any device cause shut when it a certain beyond its maximum. See
Liability stranger jurisdiction. defective no design 418; Brown Williams v. Co. Wright 45 Ill.2d Manufacturing (1970), Inc. Massey-Harris, as the (1966), well Restatement Ill.App.2d Seсond, of the Law of Torts 402A. Corp. Motors involved v. General Garofalo certain obligation interrogatories to answer the issue
primarily issue, sanctions. In the court noted passing upon imposition answers. hold that this is To evasiveness authority in a strict action is fiability of a defect tort necessity of proof specific & Co., Dunham Bushnell contrary Vaughan Mfg. cited therein. authorities Ill.
Rotche v. Buick Motor was a action manufacturer of became if the product liable whereby such character as to be certain to cause product reasonably injury *12 This, course, if negligently liability made. has no a strict rеlevancy in tort action. states, “Furthermore,
The majority opinion also was never plaintiff even able to identify the bed identi- pictures Certain were question.” fied by defendant’s supervisor as the engineering product services who, manufacturer. These other amongst were shown to the doctors language, called it “the exact and indicated that on the duplicate” par- ticular incubator question, name Hess was on printed top the bed.
The record shows that efforts father notwithstanding occurrence, child see to the incubator this was shortly after impos These sible. efforts were likewise extensive рursued during discovery but did procedures, have That it is un apparently not it. Texaco, to necessary produce itself well established product Inc. McGrew Lumber Holan v. (1969), 117 Co. Co. Mfg. Ill.App.2d 19. Shaf to The incubator was safe maximum supposedly designed provide incubator, however, for infants it. This so using overheated cause excessive dehydrate plaintiff body temperature. to It it from so doing, was without device and defendant’s any prevent such a designed so testified. Whether so engineer product was unreason- was the court. ably dangerous jury, it As to unless negligence charges, certainly foreseeable that there was something insure “safe maximum” for the incubator, overheat, infant while in the it would with the attendant ill manufacturer, literature, effects the infant. The upon its but recognized hazard had no device on its product guard Whether it overheating. in so was an negligent issue of doing fact. Walgreen Lindroth Ill. 121. was entitled to recover some from the damages hospital. error,
It my opinion, Circuit Court to direct incubator, for the manufacturer of the who be may also liable dam- ages. cause should reversed for a new trial the issue dam- ages the defendant Michael Reese and for a new Hospital trial all issues as to the defendant manufacturer.