Wineland

Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant Skagit Corporation after order sustaining demurrer to third amended complaint without leave to amend, presenting the question, should the third amended complaint have been sustained?

Record

After demurrers of defendant Skagit to three complaints sustained with leave to amend, plaintiff filed his third *890 amended complaint consisting of three counts. The first count is in negligence and is incorporated in its entirety in the other two counts. The second count is based upon warranty and the third on strict liability. It seems agreed that, as plaintiff states, “the basic cause of action—is the First Cause of Action.”

The third amended complaint (hereinafter “complaint”) 1 alleges that plaintiff was an employee of McNamara Fuller Company. On or about December 31, 1965, he was injured while he was in the process of replacing a cable on a motorized hoist, described as a Skagit TR type tramline, which had been manufactured by defendant, a Washington corporation, and sold by it either to the Oro-Dam Constructors or to plaintiff’s employer.

Inasmuch as it is well-nigh impossible to understand from the complaint what plaintiff’s theory…