Auton v. Logan Landfill, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Auton v. Logan Landfill, Inc.

    105 Ill. 2d 537 (Ill. 1984)   Cited 91 times
    Concluding that it would be patently unfair to permit a party to secure a new trial on the basis of an error which he injected into the first trial

    A jury returned a verdict for Deere in the principal action after receiving instructions which allowed such a verdict on the products liability count if the deceased had assumed the risk of working on or near the Deere equipment. On appeal, the judgment in favor of Deere was affirmed ( 121 Ill. App.3d 724), and Deere's appeal in the third-party action was dismissed as moot. Auton's argument in the appellate court was that our decision in Coney v. J.L.G. Industries, Inc. (1983), 97 Ill.2d 104, which applied comparative fault to products liability claims, required that the appellate court reverse the circuit court and order a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the defendants because it concluded that Coney applied only prospectively and because Auton's trial was completed prior to our decision in Coney.

  2. Dukes v. J.I. Case Co.

    137 Ill. App. 3d 562 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 13 times
    In J.I. Case, the jury was instructed on three separate theories for contribution — negligence, misuse, and assumption of risk — and allocated 52.95% of the responsibility for damages to the employer with the remaining responsibility to the manufacturer.

    We admit that instances of this nature are few. Two illustrative examples are found in our cases of Kirby v. General Motors Corp. (1973), 10 Ill. App.3d 92, 293 N.E.2d 345, and Auton v. Logan Landfill, Inc. (1983), 121 Ill. App.3d 724, 460 N.E.2d 3, aff'd (1985), 105 Ill.2d 537, 475 N.E.2d 817. In Kirby the plaintiff was a truck driver who had numerous occasions to repair a faulty steering box in a truck which he had driven over 150,000 miles in an 18-month period.