Borton v. Lavenduskey

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 11, 1986

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1986-02-11

Relies on Bridgewater v. Economy Engineering Co. · Law v. Yukon Delta, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-02-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2019

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION ON REHEARING

CONOVER, Judge.

¶2In 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.

¶3The "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.

¶4Petition for rehearing denied.

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