From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borton v. Lavenduskey

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District
Feb 11, 1986
488 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 4-485A90.

February 11, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Marshall County, Michael D. Cook, J.

James J. Olson, Mishawaka, for appellants.

Edward N. Kalamaros, Thomas Cohen, Edward N. Kalamaros Associates, South Bend, for appellees.


OPINION ON REHEARING


In its petition for rehearing, the Lavenduskeys 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.


Summaries of

Borton v. Lavenduskey

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District
Feb 11, 1986
488 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Borton v. Lavenduskey

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BORTON, LINDA BORTON, AND ROBERT ACKLEY, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District

Date published: Feb 11, 1986

Citations

488 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)