Borton v. Lavenduskey

Indiana Court of Appeals

Borton v. Lavenduskey

488 N.E.2d 1129, 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2311

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 11, 1986

DocketNo. 4-485A90

StatusPublished

This text of 488 N.E.2d 1129 (Borton v. Lavenduskey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borton v. Lavenduskey, 488 N.E.2d 1129, 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2311 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI