Borton v. Lavenduskey

488 N.E.2d 1129, 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2311
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Borton v. Lavenduskey. Read the opinion of the Court — 1985 Ind. App. LEXIS 3020
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided February 11, 1986·No. No. 4-485A90·Published

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

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

488 N.E.2d 1129 (Borton v. Lavenduskey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bridgewater v. Economy Engineering Co.
486 N.E.2d 484 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1985)
Law v. Yukon Delta, Inc.
458 N.E.2d 677 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1984)