id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-3843	Alberts, Joseph R.; Petersen, James	Survey of Recent Developments in Indiana Product Liability Law	2007	46	.pdf	application/pdf	23384	1294	66	^^^ The second important precept Bourne confirms is that open and obvious danger remains relevant in Indiana product liability cases even though the 1995 amendments to the IPLA eliminated the so-called open and obvious defense. In the first case, Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc.,^^ the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a football goal post that fell and injured a college student during a post-game celebration was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.^^ Bourne is a significant decision for Indiana product liability practitioners because, as discussed below, it reinforces at least four important precepts: (1) defective condition and unreasonably dangerous are not interchangeable terms; (2) the concept of open and obvious remains relevant in Indiana product liability law even though it is no longer a stand-alone defense; (3) whether a product presents an unreasonable danger can and should, under the proper circumstances, be decided by ajudge as a matter of law; and (4) a claimant's expert testimony must be sufficient, even at summaryjudgment stage, to satisfy Indiana' s safer, feasible alternative design requirement in cases in which the claimant pursues a design defect claim.	cache/inlawrev-3843.pdf	txt/inlawrev-3843.txt