In Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc., the Seventh Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that a goalpost was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it collapsed and fell on a student when fans rushed the goalpost after a football game. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer and held that the student’s failure to subjectively appreciate that the collapsing goalpost might strike his back and render him paralyzed did not alter the fact that the risk of injury was obvious as a matter of law and, consequently, that the goalpost was not unreasonably dangerous. The Seventh Circuit agreed: "Indiana law does not permit someone to engage in an inherently dangerous activity and then blame the manufacturer," and although the "open and obvious" rule has been abrogated in Indiana, the obviousness of a danger remains a relevant inquiry.
- How-to guide How-to guide: How to avoid liability for defective products in supply of goods agreements (USA)
- Checklist Checklist: Initial response to a report of suspicious activity (USA)
- How-to guide How-to guide: Understanding antitrust and unfair trade practices law and your organization’s compliance obligations (USA)