Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fore v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
Citations: 287 N.E.2d 526; 7 Ill. App. 3d 346; 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 2269Docket: 72-59
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; September 8, 1972; Illinois; State Appellate Court
In the case of Donald Fore v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. and Elroy-Roland Machinery Co., the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the trial court's summary judgment against the plaintiff, Donald Fore, in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a trenching machine accident. The plaintiff alleged negligence and strict liability against both defendants, claiming he was injured while operating the trencher, which had known brake failures. Fore had previously reported issues with the brakes and acknowledged understanding the risks of operating the machine on an incline. Despite knowing it was dangerous and unsafe, he continued to operate the machine, reasoning that it was necessary to retain his job. The court focused on whether Fore's actions constituted contributory negligence and assumption of risk as a matter of law. Fore's deposition revealed his familiarity with the machine and its limitations, admitting he was aware of the machine's braking issues. Additionally, he submitted an affidavit asserting he operated the machine as directed by his employer and in its factory condition. The court found that Fore's admissions in his deposition were uncontroverted, indicating a subjective understanding of the risks involved. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Fore had assumed the risk of using the defective product. Assessment of a plaintiff's knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of danger is based on their personal perspective rather than that of a reasonable person. In the case of Williams v. Brown Manufacturing Co., the plaintiff was found to have actual knowledge of the risk and deliberately exposed himself to it, demonstrating full age, experience, and awareness of an obvious defect and danger. Consequently, the court may declare that he assumed the risk as a matter of law, especially when the facts are undisputed, and the situation is clear. An employee's choice to face an abnormal risk due to fear of losing their job does not constitute legal constraint or involuntary exposure to risk. Additionally, assuming the risk includes the potential for unforeseen consequential injuries. The plaintiff was also held to be contributorily negligent, as he was aware of the danger and voluntarily placed himself in peril, which contradicts the standard of due care. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Peoria County was affirmed.