Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-20-6-3 (2026)
Use of product with knowledge of defect or danger
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. It is a defense to an action under this article (or IC 33-1-1.5 before its repeal) that the user or consumer bringing the action:
(1) knew of the defect;
(2) was aware of the danger in the product; and
(3) nevertheless proceeded to make use of the product and was injured.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 33-1-1.5-4(b) part.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Paul Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953 (Ind. 2018).
Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Paul Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953 (Ind. 2018). “The IPLA provides three non-exclusive defenses to a products liability action: incurred risk ( Ind. Code § 34-20-6-3 ); misuse of the product ( Ind.”
Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc., 777 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Indiana Code Section 34-20-6-3 provides a complete defense where a plaintiff incurs the risks associated with the use of a product: With respect to any action brought under [the products liability statute] .”
Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc., 841 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. 2006). “See I.C. § 34-20-6-3. But, as explained above, the Vaughns' negligence claim is not governed by the PLA and is subject to Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, Indiana Code sections 34-51-2-1 through XX-XX-X-XX.”
Hopper v. Carey, 716 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “See Ind.Code § 34-20-6-3 through -5. “It is a defense to an action under [Ind.”
Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 762 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “*143 Indiana Code § 34-20-6-3 2 addresses incurred risk while Indiana Code § 34-20-6-4 3 addresses misuse.”
Cole v. Lantis Corp., 714 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code Ann. § 34-20-6-3 (West Supp. 1998) (formerly Ind.”
Scott Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013). “Ind.Code §§ 34-20-6-3 to -5. These are the only defenses available in an action under the IPLA.”
Bailey v. Cottrell, Inc., 721 S.E.2d 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). “See Ind. Code § 34-20-6-3 . Cottrell argues that this amendment effectively did away with the voluntariness element of incurred risk, but I am not persuaded.”
Andrew Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc., Doing Bus. as Gilman Gear, 452 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006). “Indeed, that interpretation makes sense; the accident magnet is just as obvious to the designer as the user, and the rule should not work just one way. Rather than the open-and-obvious defense, the statute creates the so-called “incurred risk defense,” which requires the…”
Mesman v. Crane Pro Servs., 512 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2008). “” Ind.Code § 34-20-6-3. The fact that a risk is open and obvious remains relevant to liability.”
John Mesman & Judy Mesman v. Crane Pro Servs., a Div. of Konecranes, Inc., 409 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2005). “” Ind.Code § 34-20-6-3; see FMC Corp. v. Brown, 551 N.”
Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Paul Johnson, 90 N.E.3d 1205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “I.C. §§ 34-20-6-3 through -5. Campbell Hausfeld asserts all three defenses against Johnson's lawsuit and in support of its motion for summary judgment.”
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.