Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-20-2-2 (2026)
Exercise of reasonable care; privity
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. The rule stated in section 1 of this chapter applies although:
(1) the seller has exercised all reasonable care in the manufacture and preparation of the product; and
(2) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
However, in an action based on an alleged design defect in the product or based on an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in designing the product or in providing the warnings or instructions.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-3(b).]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010).
TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2. Thus the statute itself prescribes the applicable standard of care.”
Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “" Ind. Code § 34-20-2-2 . For purposes of a design defect claim, [a] product is in a defective condition under [IPLA] if, at the time it is conveyed by the seller to another party, it is in a condition: (1) not contemplated by reasonable persons among those considered expected…”
Angela Brewer, Individually & as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Rickey A. Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc. d/b/a Peterbilt Motors Co., 124 N.E.3d 616 (Ind. 2019). “See I.C. § 34-20-2-2 ; Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford , 868 N.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, 868 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2007). “” I.C. § 34-20-2-2. Although the adequacy of warnings, which implicates breach of duty, is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact to resolve, the nature of the duty to provide warnings is a question of law to be decided by the court.”
Dow Chem. Co. v. Ebling, 723 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Ind. Code § 34-20-2-2 . A product is in a defective condition if it is in a condition: "(1) not contemplated by reasonable persons among those considered expected users or consumers of the product; and (2) that will be unreasonably dangerous to the expected user or consumer when…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Moore, 905 N.E.2d 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “See Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2. To prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach.”
Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc., 841 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. 2006). “" Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2(2) (formerly § 33-1-1.”
Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Paul Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953 (Ind. 2018). “Ind. Code § 34-20-2-2 . The IPLA provides three non-exclusive defenses to a products liability action: incurred risk ( Ind.”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). “I.C. §§ 34-20-2-2, -3. However, the City is not suing for recovery from physical harm, and therefore its negligence claim is not subject to the Act.”
Peter v. Ford Motor Co., 913 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “" Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2. Although the adequacy of warnings, which implicates a breach of duty, is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact to resolve, the nature of the duty to provide warnings is a question of law to be decided by the court.”
Scott Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013). “See Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2. To prevail on a negligence claim a plaintiff must establish “(1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach.”
Leonard Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012). “We do not find an abuse of discretion in allowing Dr. Hutter to opine about foreseeability.”
— Ind. Code § 34-20-2-2(2) — 1 case
Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc., 841 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. 2006). “" Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2(2) (formerly § 33-1-1.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.