1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.E.2d
  4. 488 N.E.2d
  5. 488 N.E.2d 1129 (1986)
 

BORTON v. LAVENDUSKEY

No. 4-485A90.

488 N.E.2d 1129 (1986)

James BORTON, Linda Borton, and Robert Ackley, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Jack LAVENDUSKEY and Violet Lavenduskey, Appellees (Defendants below).

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District.

February 11, 1986.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James J. Olson, Mishawaka, for appellants.

Edward N. Kalamaros, Thomas Cohen, Edward N. Kalamaros & Associates, South Bend, for appellees.

OPINION ON REHEARING

CONOVER, Judge.

In its petition for rehearing, the Lavenduskeys state we failed to address their contention the facts here warranted entry of summary judgment under the "open and obvious danger" rule set forth in Law v. Yukon Delta (1984), Ind. App., 458 N.E.2d 677. They are correct, we did not, and will now do so.

The "open and obvious danger" doctrine cannot be applied in this case...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases