Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division

374 N.E.2d 437 (1978)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
S
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division

Illinois Supreme Court
374 N.E.2d 437 (1978)

MP

Facts

Rita Rae Skinner (plaintiff) was injured by an injection-molding machine that was manufactured by Reed-Prentice Division Package Machinery Co. (Reed-Prentice) (defendant). Skinner alleged that the machine malfunctioned and sued Reed-Prentice in tort for strict liability. Reed-Prentice filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Skinner’s employer, Hinckley Plastic, Inc., and alleged that the employer’s negligence contributed to cause Skinner’s injuries and that any judgment entered against Reed-Prentice should be entered against the employer for contribution in an amount commensurate with its culpability for Skinner’s injuries. The trial court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against it, and the appellate court affirmed. Reed-Prentice appealed and argued that if the court adopted a rule of contribution in this case, it should be based on the relative degree of fault and not equal apportionment among the number of wrongdoers. The employer argued that vis-à-vis Reed-Prentice, it was a passive tortfeasor and that a manufacturer like Reed-Prentice that is held strictly liable in tort is an active tortfeasor with no claim for indemnity from a passive tortfeasor.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Goldenhersh, J.)

Dissent (Dooley, J.)

Dissent (Ward, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Torts

Key Terms