Ind. Code » Title 34
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-20-4-1 (2026)

Products considered defective

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 1. A product is in a defective condition under this article 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 users or consumers of the product; and

(2) that will be unreasonably dangerous to the expected user or consumer when used in reasonably expectable ways of handling or consumption.

[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-2.5(a).]

As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.15.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: 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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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). · cites it 4× “See I.C. §§ 34-20-4-1, -2; see also, e.g. , Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.”
Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc., 777 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “" I.C. § 34-20-4-1. The phrase "unreasonably dangerous" refers to "any situation in which the use of a product exposes the user or consumer to a risk of physical harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases the product with the ordinary…”
Heritage Operating, L.P. d/b/a Empire Gas v. Lois A. Mauck & Ralph Thomas, 37 N.E.3d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “denied; see I.C. §§ 34-20-4-1; -2. [14] In this case, the Tenants proceeded under the theories of negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and/or implied warranties, and Empire Gas moved for summary judgment on all three theories.”
Dow Chem. Co. v. Ebling, 723 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “" Ind. Code § 34-20-4-1 . Unreasonably dangerous refers to "any situation in which the use of a product exposes the user or consumer to a risk of physical harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases the product with the ordinary knowledge…”
Andrew Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc., Doing Bus. as Gilman Gear, 452 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “The district court was correct, furthermore, that obviousness remains a relevant inquiry because, as noted above, the question of what is unreasonably dangerous depends upon the reasonable expectations of consumers and expected uses.”
Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “Ind. Code § 34-20-4-1 . In an action for failure to provide adequate warnings, a product is defective if the seller fails to: "(1) properly package or label the product to give reasonable warnings of danger about the product; or (2) give reasonably complete instructions on…”
Birch Ex Rel. Birch v. Midwest Garage Door Sys., 790 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 34-20-4-1 provides that: A product is in a defective condition under this article 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 users or consumers of the…”
Scott Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013). “” Ind.Code § 34-20-4-1. As noted earlier, defective-design claims sound in negligence, so a party alleging a design defect “must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in designing the product.”
In Re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 688 F. Supp. 2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “Ind.Code § 34-20-4-1 and -2; see Moss v. Crosman Corp.”
Johnson v. Avco Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (E.D. Mo. 2010). “Ind.Code § 34-20-4-1. "The requirement that the product be in a defective condition focuses on the product itself while the requirement that the product be unreasonably dangerous focuses on the reasonable expectations of the consumer.”
James v. Diva Int'l, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 945 (S.D. Ind. 2011). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs have alleged negligence and violations of two state statutes, Ind.Code §§ 34-20-4-1 and -2, for failure to warn and sale of a defective product.”
Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “Code § 34-20-4-1. Here, if Ford stipulates that the plastic casing was not intended to be used as a protective device to guard the metal cables from moisture, salt spray, etc.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
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.