*1 and states that recognizes preserves privilege rule parties, examination conducted of a reasonable opportunity supplement both notes that rule permitted opinion expressly court. their question concerning competency court and counsel jurors such voir an has right On dire qualifications. attorney exercise of intelligent will an permit reasonable pertinent inquiries Kirk, right challenge. (Schneider In Lobb it Fischbach, Watson v. re failure inquiries by stated that a additional permit pertinent minds to ascertain whether spective parties enable parties which would constitute are free from bias or jurors prejudice cause, or would enable them to exercise their basis which challenge constitute reversible challenge may right intelligently, peremptory error. are and the cause is remanded for below judgments
new trial. and remanded.
Reversed SIMKINS,
SMITH and concur. JJ., Kay Winnett, Minor, Stine, Susie Her Mother and Next A Teresa Winnett, Berlin (Helix Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant — Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.) (No. 31, 1973. January
Fourth District *2 TRAPP, J., dissenting. P. Walsh, Ltd.,
Dale A. Cini Heller, and Patrick of Ryan both of M. Mattoon, for appellant. Phebus, Urbana, Tum-
Phillips, Tummelson & of Bryan, C. (Hurshal melson and Phebus, W. of for counsel,) appellee. Joseph
Mr. CRAVEN delivered the court:
The only presented this is by appeal the of Count II of an amended complaint to state a cause of action de against the fendant Helix The trial Corporation. court entered an order dismissing the and in bar of complaint No action. memorandum or or state finding ment of in the deficiency is in complaint that record. We hold Count II of the a complaint states cause of action. of
Count II as amended complaint that in alleges July of 1963 plaintiff, then four aged was years, injured when she her hand placed in the belt a conveyor of forage wagon manufactured by defendant. The forage wagon was owned her grandfather and by was being operated him in his at by b'amlot the time of the injury.
The
is further that
allegation
the defendant manufactured the wagon,
that it was
in
unreasonably dangerous
several specified
particulars.
is
plaintiff
to have
resulted from the unreasonably
as
dangerous conditions
specified
such conditions are alleged to have
existed at the time the
left
wagon
the control of the defendant-manu
facturer. These
state a
allegations
cause of action in strict
as
liability
enumerated in
v.
Motor,
Suvada White
32 Ill.2d
In dismissal, of the order support the defendant urges that the doctrine of strict liability only a imposes duty a upon manufacturer a product safe for the for which it purpose was supplied. The de fendant contends there is no breach of unless the duty product fails in of its perform in light manner to be reasonably expected same nature and is basically intended This contention function. con- in “crash-proof car” Mieher. We argument urged reject tention for the reasons there stated. Ludwick, by is relied
Kay We do the defendant in duty. of its contention of no breach of support Ludwick, dis not find that case be we upheld here. In applicable a negligence missal of of action complaint attempting allege cause in deficient in the lawnmower. was operation of a there Here, in the form that no a breach of alleged. duty breach was duty in the of commerce defective manufacturing and channels placing is alleged. product the com
The defendant in support dismissing urges in 1965 that the strict liability recognized adopted doctrine of plaint decision in should not be this 1963 injury Suvada analogy to that We are asked by manufactured product prior date. Dist., Ill.2d to hold Molitor Kaneland Com. Unit only.. privity Suvada The abolition products prospective im of governmental cases to the abolition comparable not liability as involved in munity Molitor.
Furthermore, 418, 261 v. Brown 45 Ill.2d in Williams *3 305, recognized Court clearly application N.E.2d Supreme Massey- also Wright products. (See products liability pre-Suvada & Harris, Inc., Vaughan Dunham v. 68 215 N.E.2d Ill.App.2d v. Merit Co., Haley Bushnell Mfg. Ill.App.2d Inc., Chev., Finally, foreseeability N.E.2d issue here of the not relevant jury a cause of action. Such fact to state Vaughan determination trial of the Dunham (See cause. stated, the For the Bushnell reasons supra.) judgment is remanded is reversed this cause court Coles County circuit and for further the motion to dismiss deny that court with directions expressed. consistent with views herein proceedings and cause remanded with directions. Judgment SIMKINS, J., concurs. dissenting: TRAPP
Mr. PRESIDING the reason the pleadings from I dissent the principal my specially expressed which malee the views disclose facts Corp., v. Stran-Steel in Lewis concurring opinion 638. affirm trial court. would I