{
  "id": 5626236,
  "name": "NEDOT KOSOVRASTI et al., Plaintiffs, v. KUX MACHINE COMPANY et al., Defendants.-(KUX MACHINE COMPANY, DIVISION OF WICKES CORPORATION, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE INDUSTRIAL DIECAST COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kosovrasti v. Kux Machine Co.",
  "decision_date": "1978-03-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 76-945",
  "first_page": "892",
  "last_page": "894",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 3d 892"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "309 N.E.2d 104",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. App. 3d 996",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2511540
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/17/0996-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 N.E.2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. 2d 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5805318
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "45-46"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/70/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.E.2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 3d 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2491915
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/41/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. 2d 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 N.E.2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 3d 787",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2490868
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/41/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 N.E.2d 460",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4267,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0964097499892947e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5669452157249322
    },
    "sha256": "8d8998a1424cd3380a844c0b977423d262f9814089b2bc59a9fc0bc44a6571d7",
    "simhash": "1:9bc569cd3d55dc8c",
    "word_count": 654
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:59.686785+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NEDOT KOSOVRASTI et al., Plaintiffs, v. KUX MACHINE COMPANY et al., Defendants.\u2014(KUX MACHINE COMPANY, DIVISION OF WICKES CORPORATION, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE INDUSTRIAL DIECAST COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Nedot Kosovrasti, an employee of Teledyne Industrial Diecast Company (Teledyne), was injured when a diecasting machine manufactured by Kux Machine Company (Kux) closed on. his arm. He and his wife, plaintiff Ajsa Kosovrasti, filed a two-count complaint against Kux. He sued for personal injuries and she for loss of consortium. Count I of the complaint sounded in strict liability and count II in negligence. Kux filed a third-party action against Teledyne, seeking indemnity as to each count in the amount of any and all judgments which may be rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against Kux, together with costs and attorneys\u2019 fees. Count I of the third-party complaint of Kux alleged, in essence, that Kux and Teledyne were co-manufacturers and co-designers of the diecasting machine, in that Teledyne \u201caffirmatively declined to purchase said machine with certain safety features\u201d \u201d that if the machine was, in fact, improperly designed, \u201cthen the unreasonably dangerous condition of said machine was the direct and proximate result of the active conduct of\u201d the third-party defendant (Teledyne) in declining to purchase the machine with the available safety features with which said machine was offered for sale by the defendant (Kux); and that under the circumstances the conduct of Kux in selling the machine in an unreasonably dangerous condition was passive in that Kux merely acquiesced in the request of its customer Teledyne, while the active conduct of Teledyne in specifying that the machine not be equipped with the safety devices was the proximate cause of any unreasonably dangerous condition of the machine.\nCount II of the third-party complaint alleged that Teledyne was actively negligent in certain specified ways, that its active negligence was the proximate cause of Kosovrasti\u2019s injuries and that if Kux was negligent its negligence was merely passive.\nTeledyne\u2019s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was granted. Kux has appealed, contending that its third-party complaint was improperly dismissed. We disagree.\nIf, as Kux contends, it and Teledyne were co-manufacturers and co-designers, then they were both actively negligent, whether Kosovrasti\u2019s claim was based on strict liability or in negligence and Kux\u2019s active negligence bars its claim of indemnity from Teledyne. (Buehler v. Whalen (1977), 70 Ill. 2d.51, 63-64, 374 N.E.2d 460.) If they were not co-manufacturers and co-designers (see Rosales v. Verson Allsteel Press Co. (1976), 41 Ill. App. 3d 787, 354 N.E.2d 553, appeal denied (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 598), then Kux\u2019s claim for \u201cdownstream\u201d indemnity as to Kosovrasti\u2019s claim based on strict liability must fail. (Stevens v. Silver Manufacturing Co. (1976), 41 Ill. App. 3d 483, 355 N.E.2d 145, and cases therein cited.) Although the supreme court reversed Stevens and held that there could be \u201cdownstream\u201d indemnity, it made that decision applicable prospectively \u201cto causes of action arising out of occurrences on and after March 1, 1978.\u201d (Stevens v. Silver Manufacturing Co. (1977), 70 Ill. 2d 41, 45-46, 374 N.E.2d 455.) The action in the case before us arose out of an occurrence which took place September 26, 1972.\nKux\u2019s claim for indemnity based on negligence likewise must fail because the liability of a manufacturer or distributor of a defective or unreasonably dangerous product is qualitatively active and that negligence cannot be offset against that of a mere subsequent user. Stanfield v. Medalist Industries, Inc. (1974), 17 Ill. App. 3d 996, 309 N.E.2d 104.\nThe trial court correctly dismissed the third-party complaint.\nJudgment affirmed.\nGOLDBERG, P. J., and McGLOON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kralovec, Sweeney, Marquard & Doyle, of Chicago (John C. Doyle and Edward V. Scoby, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (C. Roy Peterson, Toni McNamara, Richard E. Mueller, and Hugh C. Griffin, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NEDOT KOSOVRASTI et al., Plaintiffs, v. KUX MACHINE COMPANY et al., Defendants.\u2014(KUX MACHINE COMPANY, DIVISION OF WICKES CORPORATION, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELEDYNE INDUSTRIAL DIECAST COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.)\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 76-945\nOpinion filed March 13, 1978.\nKralovec, Sweeney, Marquard & Doyle, of Chicago (John C. Doyle and Edward V. Scoby, of counsel), for appellant.\nLord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (C. Roy Peterson, Toni McNamara, Richard E. Mueller, and Hugh C. Griffin, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0892-01",
  "first_page_order": 914,
  "last_page_order": 916
}