Case ID: ne2d_488/html/1129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CONOVER, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James BORTON, Linda Borton, and Robert Ackley, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Jack LAVENDUSKEY and Violet Lavenduskey, Appellees (Defendants Below).
    No. 4-485A90.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District.
    Feb. 11, 1986.
    James J. Olson, Mishawaka, for appel lants.
    Edward N. Kalamaros, Thomas Cohen, Edward N. Kalamaros & Associates, South Bend, for appellees.
   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.