Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-20-4-2 (2026)
Failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. A product is defective under this article 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 proper use of the product;
when the seller, by exercising reasonable diligence, could have made such warnings or instructions available to the user or consumer.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-2.5(b).]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “" Ind. Code § 34-20-4-2 . The plaintiff must show the manufacturer "failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances .”
Gresser v. Dow Chem. Co., 989 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Indiana Code § 34-20-4-2 provides that a product is defective under IPLA if the seller fails to (1) properly package or label the product to give reasonable warnings of danger; or (2) give reasonably complete instructions on proper use of the product; *346 when the seller, by…”
Heritage Operating, L.P. d/b/a Empire Gas v. Lois A. Mauck & Ralph Thomas, 37 N.E.3d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “Nevertheless, Empire Gas maintained a propane tank—which it knew to be approximately half full—on the vacant Property.”
Birch Ex Rel. Birch v. Midwest Garage Door Sys., 790 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Ind.Code § 34-20-4-2. Here, the Birches argue that their garage door opener system was defective because of its design and of Midwest's failure to warn of the new federal regulations.”
Scott Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013). “” Ind.Code § 34-20-4-2; see also Rushford,, 868 N.”
Tucker v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (S.D. Ind. 2008). “, Ind.Code § 34-20-4-2 (“A product is defective under this article if the seller fails to: (1) properly package or label the product to give reasonable warnings of danger about the product .”
Triplett v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 422 F. Supp. 2d 779 (W.D. Ky. 2006). “” Ind.Code § 34-20-4-2. There is no dispute that the product functioned as it was designed to function.”
Bayer Corp. v. Rene Leach (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “See I.C. § 34-20-4-2 (providing that a product is defective “if the seller fails to .”
Superior Oil Co., Inc v. Evansville Auto., LLC (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). “See Ind. Code § 34-20-4-2 . Either way, if the question is whether the warnings were adequate to render the Drum non-defective as a matter of law or whether the warnings were adequate to trigger the incurred-risk defense, the result is the same: Superior is entitled to summary…”
Haile v. Galella, D.D.S. (S.D. Ind. 2022). “" Ind. Code § 34-20-4-2 . Put another way, [the manufacturer] had "a duty to warn with respect to latent dangerous characteristics of the product, even though there is no 'defect' in the product itself.”
O'connor v. John's Dental Lab'y, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2022). “" Ind. Code § 34-20-4-2 . Put another way, [the manufacturer] had "a duty to warn with respect to latent dangerous characteristics of the product, even though there is no 'defect' in the product itself.”
Shoshido v. John's Dental Lab'y, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2022). “" Ind. Code § 34-20-4-2 . Put another way, [the manufacturer] had "a duty to warn with respect to latent dangerous characteristics of the product, even though there is no 'defect' in the product itself.”
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.