Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(Download) "Fanning v. Lemay" by Supreme Court of Illinois * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Fanning v. Lemay

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Fanning v. Lemay
  • Author : Supreme Court of Illinois
  • Release Date : January 29, 1967
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 57 KB

Description

Ruth Fanning brought an action for personal injuries in the circuit court of Jefferson County against the operators of a laundromat, the U.S. Rubber Company, and Montgomery Ward and Company. On motion of the defendants the court dismissed the complaint as to all three defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, Fifth District, which reversed the judgment and remanded the cause. (Fanning v. Lemay, 78 Ill. App.2d 166.) We have granted the petition of defendants U.S. Rubber Company and Montgomery Ward for leave to appeal. The complaint is in three counts, the first seeking recovery against the laundromat, the second against the U.S. Rubber Company, and the third against Montgomery Ward. It is alleged that on a certain rainy day the plaintiff entered the laundromat to use one of the coin operated washing machines, that the asphalt tile floor was wet and slippery, that the plaintiff was wearing a pair of shoes made by U.S. Rubber Co. and purchased from Montgomery Ward, and that she then and there slipped and fell to the floor, sustaining serious injuries. In count II, against U.S. Rubber, the complaint charges that the soles of the shoes, when wet, were not safe for use in walking on asphalt tile floors, and that as the manufacturer the defendant was negligent in using a type of material it should have known ""was not safe for the purpose for which it was used, in that such soles would become slippery when wet."" The defendant is further alleged to have negligently failed to warn purchasers that the shoe was dangerous to wear when wet. Count III charges that in selling her the shoes Montgomery Ward impliedly warranted them to be fit for the purpose for which they were purchased and that in fact they were not fit for such purpose because the soles became ""slippery and dangerous when wet and used upon asphalt tile.""


Free Download "Fanning v. Lemay" PDF ePub Kindle