Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc. - 452 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006)

Rule:

A plaintiff bringing an action under the Indiana Products Liability Act, Ind. Code §§ 34-20-1-1 to 34-20-9-1, must establish that (1) he or she was harmed by a product; (2) the product was sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer; (3) the plaintiff was a foreseeable user or consumer; (4) the defendant was in the business of selling the product; and (5) the product reached the consumer or user in the condition it was sold. Ind. Code § 34-20-2-1.

Facts:

The son attended a football game. Near the end of the fourth quarter, he joined a crowd to storm the field in celebration of an imminent victory. The son did not rip down the goalpost. He jumped and tried to grab it, missed, and walked away. With his back to the post, he heard a snap, and the post fell on his back, rendering him a paraplegic. The district court held that state law barred recovery because it was obvious to a reasonable person that a collapsing goalpost posed a risk of serious injury. 

Issue:

Can the "open and obvious" rule bar a claim for defective design under the Indiana Products Liability Act?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed and held that, although the "open and obvious" rule had been abrogated, obviousness remained a relevant inquiry because the question of what was unreasonably dangerous depended upon the reasonable expectations of consumers and expected uses. The court also held that plaintiffs' failed to show that the goalpost was defective. The court further held that the mere existence of a safer product was not sufficient to establish liability.