Court Opinion

ID: 9715084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:53:50.646684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:31.369662
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case to the extent that the *1145majority directs the trial court to vacate its judgment concerning the strict liability claim and rehear it as indicated in the opinion.
Although our legislature has enacted a statute which speaks of "strict liability," there in fact is no such thing as strict liability in products liability cases, nor does the statute in actuality attempt to create such "strict liability." The statute, Ind. Code § 88-1-1.5-8, reads in part as follows:
"One who sells, leases, or otherwise puts into the stream of commerce any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or customer...." (Emphasis added.)
If we were dealing with strict liability, the manufacturer would be held liable for placing his product in the stream of commerce absent any type of negligence. This the legislature has not done and to do so would place an unconscionable burden upon the manufacturers of various products. What our legislature and many of the cases in products liability are actually discussing is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
In each case, a plaintiff is required to prove that the product is in some way defective. The manner in which it became so defective under the exclusive control of the manufacturer falls under the doctrine of res ipso loquitur. I do not perceive that the case of Bemis Co., Inc. v. Rubush (1981), Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1058, was in any respect modified or changed by the passage of the above statute.
In the case at bar, the fact that the motorcycle did not have crash bars on the rear was certainly a condition which was open and obvious. Even though one might argue that the motorcycle would have been a safer machine with crash bars installed, there is no practical end to the myriad of improvements or additions that might be made to any given product to make it a safer product.
If a manufacturer, with full knowledge of a given situation, fails to incorporate known features, the failure of which cannot be readily discerned, then there is a possibility of litigation concerning the manufacturer's negligent conduct. Where, however, as in the case at bar, the condition of the motorcycle was open and obvious to all who approached the machine, the injured party assumes the risk.
I believe the Beris case applies and that the trial court was correct in granting Suzuki's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals was correct in so holding.
I would deny transfer in this case.