History
  • No items yet
midpage
488 N.E.2d 1129
Ind. Ct. App.
1986

OPINION ON REHEARING

CONOVER, Judge.

In its petition for rehearing, the Laven-duskeys state we failed to address their contention the facts here warranted entry of summary judgment under the "open and obvious danger" rule set forth in Law v. Yukon Delta (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 677. They are correct, we did not, and will now do so.

The "open and obvious danger" doctrine cannot be applied in this case. Our Supreme Court in Bridgewater v. Economy Engineering (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 484, by adopting Judge Staton's dissent in Yukon Delta, has limited the applicability of that rule to products liability cases only. This is not a products liability case.

Petition for rehearing denied.

YOUNG, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Borton v. Lavenduskey
Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 11, 1986
Citations: 488 N.E.2d 1129; 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2311; No. 4-485A90
Docket Number: No. 4-485A90
Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In
    Borton v. Lavenduskey, 488 N.E.2d 1129