« Courts - Astonishing stories of collusion between Pennsylvania's legislature and its Supreme Court; More | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals decides one today »

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court defines “use” of a product under the Indiana Products Liability Act

In Vaughn v. Daniels Company, a 3-2 opinion issued today, Justice Boehm writes:

We hold that “use” of a product under the Indiana Products Liability Act does not include assembly and installation where the seller retains an obligation or arrangement with the pur-chaser to deliver a fully assembled and installed product. Because the plaintiff was injured in the process of installing the product on behalf of its supplier, he is not a consumer or user of the product that had not yet been assembled as required by the purchaser and has no claim under the PLA. For this reason, his negligence claim is not governed by the PLA. * * *

Transfer is granted. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Solar is affirmed. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Daniels on the Vaughns’ negligent design claim is reversed. Its grant of summary judgment to Daniels on the Vaughns’ other negligence claims and on Stephen Vaughn’s strict liability claim is affirmed. This case is remanded to the trial court.

Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, J., concur.
Dickson, J., dissents with separate opinion, in which Rucker, J., concurs. [pp 17-19]

I dissent to express my strong disagreement with the Court's conclusion that a worker in-stalling a defective and unreasonably dangerous product is deprived of the right to assert a strict liability claim under the Indiana Product Liability Act, Indiana Code § 34-20-2. The plaintiff, Stephen Vaughn, should be permitted to bring this strict liability action as a "user" or "con-sumer" under the Act. * * *

I also disagree with the majority's conclusion finding Solar not liable despite the fact that Solar was charged with specific duties to provide certain railings under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

For these reasons, I dissent and believe that this Court should reverse in all respects the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Daniels and Solar.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 7, 2006 11:07 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions