## Facts

- After a Ball State University football win, Andrew Bourne entered the field with other fans who attempted to tear down an aluminum football goalpost.
- The goalpost fell onto Bourne’s back, causing paraplegia.
- Bourne and his parents sued the manufacturer, Marty Gilman, Inc. (Gilman Gear), under Indiana products-liability law, alleging the goalpost was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous.
- Plaintiffs alleged it was foreseeable that fans would tear down goalposts, that ordinary consumers would not appreciate the specific risk posed by this goalpost, and that safer alternative designs (e.g., breakaway/collapsible designs) existed.
- Gilman Gear’s president acknowledged awareness that fans sometimes tear down goalposts.
- Plaintiffs offered expert testimony that the goalpost would bend and then “snap suddenly,” causing the crossbar/uprights to fall abruptly, and that the manufacturer failed to test how the goalpost would break.
- The expert did not support these opinions with testing, calculations, or empirical data, and relied largely on the existence of other designs.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Indiana Product Liability Act, the goalpost was in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous to expected users.
2. Whether the obviousness of the danger from a falling goalpost meant, as a matter of law, that the product did not pose a danger beyond ordinary consumer expectations.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ expert evidence and alternative-design theory were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturer.
- The court held the goalpost was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law because the risk of serious injury from a collapsing goalpost during a tear-down was an obvious, general danger to a reasonable person on the field.
- The court concluded plaintiffs’ expert opinions were speculative and did not supply competent evidence that a feasible alternative design would materially reduce the risk in the relevant circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana law, a product is “unreasonably dangerous” only if it presents a danger beyond what an ordinary consumer would contemplate, given ordinary community knowledge of the product’s characteristics.
- Although “open and obvious” danger is not a complete bar to recovery, obviousness remains highly relevant to whether a product is unreasonably dangerous under the consumer-expectation standard.
- A design-defect claim premised on alternative design requires evidence that the alternative is feasible and would significantly reduce the relevant risk; merely identifying other designs without scientific support is insufficient at summary judgment.
- Foreseeability of misuse and manufacturer awareness of that misuse do not, standing alone, establish that the product is unreasonably dangerous when the resulting hazard is one ordinary consumers would recognize.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the manufacturer because the hazard of injury from a falling goalpost during a crowd tear-down was plainly apparent and therefore not beyond ordinary consumer expectations under Indiana law, and plaintiffs failed to present non-speculative expert proof that a feasible alternative design would have significantly reduced the risk.


Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc., 452 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2006)