Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-20-6-4 (2026)
Misuse of product
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 4. It is a defense to an action under this article (or IC 33-1-1.5 before its repeal) that a cause of the physical harm is a misuse of the product by the claimant or any other person not reasonably expected by the seller at the time the seller sold or otherwise conveyed the product to another party.
[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 15
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · 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). “Code § 34-20-6-3 ); misuse of the product ( Ind. Code § 34-20-6-4 ); and modification or alteration of the product ( Ind.”
Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2003). “Ind.Code § 34-20-6-4; [6] Underly v. Advance Mach.”
Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc., 777 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Under Indiana Code Section 34-20-6-4, "[i]t is a defense [to a strict liability action] that a cause of the physical harm is a misuse of the product by the claimant or any other person not reasonably expected by the seller at the time the seller sold or otherwise conveyed the…”
Barnard v. Saturn Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “” Ind.Code § 34-20-6-4. We have further defined misuse as “use for a purpose or in a manner not foreseeable by the manufacturer.”
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.”
Scott Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013). “See Ind.Code § 34-20-6-4. Though presented below, the district court did not address this argument because it had no need to do so.”
Andrew Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc., Doing Bus. as Gilman Gear, 452 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006). “” Ind.Code § 34-20-6-4; see also Morgen v. Ford Motor Co.”
Burt v. Makita USA, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 2d 893 (N.D. Ind. 2002). “Moreover, “[i]t is a defense to an action under this article ... that a cause of the physical harm is a misuse of the product by the claimant or any other person not reasonably expected by the seller at the time the seller sold or otherwise conveyed the product to another party.”
Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Paul Johnson, 90 N.E.3d 1205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Misuse [16] Pursuant to I.C. § 34-20-6-4, it is a defense to a products liability action that "a cause of the physical harm is a misuse of the product by the claimant.”
Parry v. Stand. Fusee Corp. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “Ind. Code § 34-20-6-4 . The statue states "[i]t is a defense to an action under this article … that a cause of the physical harm is a misuse of the product by the claimant or any other person not reasonably expected by the seller at the time the seller sold or otherwise conveyed…”
St. John v. Kalorik, LLC (S.D. Ind. 2025). “50 at 13 (relying on Ind. Code § 34-20-6-4 ). Plaintiffs respond that misuse is a question of fact that must be decided by a jury, and that any misuses cannot support summary judgment because they were foreseeable by Kalorik.”
Kyle Hackney v. Pendu Mfg., Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “[20] The IPLA provides three non-exclusive defenses to a products liability action: incurred risk under Indiana Code section 34-20-6-3; misuse of the product under Indiana Code section 34-20-6-4; and modification or alteration of the product under Indiana Code section 34-20-6-5.”
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.