Meyer v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Dissent
JUSTICE MURRAY,
specially concurring:
I specially concur only in the hope that the Illinois Supreme Court or State legislature will clarify the question of whether a device designed and used only to support materials is a scaffold, hoist, crane, etc., within the meaning of the Illinois Structural Work Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 60 et seq.). The case of Urman v. Walter (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 1085, 428 N.E.2d 1051, cited by the majority, supports that proposition. The case of Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1980), 90 Ill. App. 3d 1024, 414 N.E.2d 147, and other cases are to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Vuletich v. United States Steel Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1987
- Urman v. WalterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1981
- Matthews v. Commonwealth Edison Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- Seeden v. Metropolitan Sanitary DistrictAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988