Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Thomas v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals

74 Ill. App. 3d 522 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Thomas v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals

3 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Carey by Carey v. Hy-Temp Mfg.

    702 F. Supp. 666 (N.D. Ill. 1988)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying summary judgment to component part manufacturer where evidence showed that it influenced the design of the final product

    Dunham v. Vaughan Bushnell Manufacturing Co., 42 Ill.2d 339, 342, 247 N.E.2d 401, 403 (1969); Kokoyachuk v. Aeroquip Corp., 172 Ill. App.3d 432, 437, 122 Ill.Dec. 348, 350, 526 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1st Dist. 1988). Therefore, a component maker can be held liable if its component is defective for a known use, Thomas v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, 74 Ill. App.3d 522, 529, 30 Ill.Dec. 273, 279, 392 N.E.2d 1141, 1147 (4th Dist. 1979), aff'd, 81 Ill.2d 206, 40 Ill.Dec. 801, 407 N.E.2d 32 (1980), and a component maker who follows the specifications of the finished product producer can be held liable if the specifications are "obviously dangerous," Loos, 168 Ill. App.3d at 564, 119 Ill.Dec. at 183, 522 N.E.2d at 845. Accordingly, we must consider whether any of the evidence produced in discovery tends to prove that Therm-O-Disc controlled or influenced the design of the Heatnapper, and whether it knew how Hy-Temp would use its switch.

  2. Thomas v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals

    81 Ill. 2d 206 (Ill. 1980)   Cited 28 times
    In Thomas, the accident was due to the improper positioning of the check valve; this valve was positioned by the defendant Dover; thus, the defect was in the component when it left Dover's hands. As we have already noted, in the present case there is no evidence that the accident was not due to the improper installation of the motor and motor frame.

    Certified filed a third-party complaint for indemnity against OPW Corporation, a division of Dover Corporation (Dover), the manufacturer of the component part alleged to be defective. Kaiser counterclaimed, seeking indemnity from both Certified and Dover. After a jury trial, the court entered judgments on the verdicts (1) in favor of plaintiff and against Kaiser for $50,000, (2) in favor of Certified and against plaintiff, (3) in favor of Certified and against Kaiser for indemnity, and (4) in favor of Kaiser and against Dover for indemnity. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court relative to the jury verdicts but reversed the allowance of attorney's fees, an issue not before us on appeal. ( 74 Ill. App.3d 522.) We allowed Dover's petition for leave to appeal, and Kaiser cross-appeals.

  3. People ex Rel. Leland Grove v. Springfield

    520 N.E.2d 1205 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    Adjudicating the rights of the parties, where both had completed annexations of the same territory

    However, as Springfield points out, attorney fees are not awardable in a civil action unless the statute creating the cause of action specifically provides that attorney fees may be recovered by the prevailing party. Thomas v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals (1979), 74 Ill. App.3d 522, 392 N.E.2d 1141. The language of section 18-108 does not include any reference to awarding attorney fees in a quo warranto action.