889, and Urman v. Walter (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 1085, 428 N.E.2d 105, appeal denied (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 557. In Prange, the plaintiff was crushed by metal poles he was carrying on a forklift truck when the poles rolled off the lift mechanism of the truck. In holding that the Structural Work Act applied, the Prange court stressed that the Act was intended to protect against injuries caused by the collapse of a support device or the falling of any material from the device. Prange, 109 Ill. App. 3d at 1129, citing Urman v. Walter (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 1085, 428 N.E.2d 105. In Urman, the plaintiff, a structural ironworker, was injured when inadequately supported roofing trusses fell upon him. The court on appea 4 Ill. App. 3d 967, 464 N.E.2d 1239, appeal denied (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 563 (<HOLDING>).) While the plaintiff has suggested that the
holding that the act is not retroactive holding that dependent parents could not recover lossofsociety under the jones act where the jury had found no unseaworthiness holding that payments in the nature of support need not be made directly to the spouse or dependent to be nondischargeable holding that the devices described in the act generally refer to contrivances on which a workman is dependent for support holding that the act is retroactive