## Facts

- Danville High School bought an automatic baseball pitching machine from a retailer; the machine was branded and tagged as a “Dudley” product.
- The machine was actually made by another company under an exclusive distribution agreement, but the branding and materials did not disclose that arrangement.
- The machine used a spring-powered throwing arm; the electric motor rewound the spring, and the arm could still strike with force when the machine was unplugged.
- Evidence showed that when the arm was in an “energized” position, it could be triggered by slight vibration or atmospheric changes.
- The throwing arm was exposed, with no protective shield.
- The shipment included assembly instructions and a general warning tag referring to operating instructions, but no operating instructions were provided with the machine as delivered and assembled.
- After assembly, school personnel stored the unplugged machine in a storage/locker room area.
- A student, Lawrence Schmitt, entered to clean, was unaware of the danger, came within range, and the arm activated and struck him in the face, causing severe injuries and multiple surgeries.
- Schmitt sued, and a jury awarded $35,000 against Dudley; Dudley appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a distributor that markets and labels a product as its own may be held to the same negligence standard as the actual manufacturer.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Dudley was negligent in design and marketing, including failure to guard the throwing arm and failure to warn of latent dangers (such as firing while unplugged).
3. Whether the verdict was excessive or reversible error occurred through jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Schmitt.
- Dudley could be treated as the manufacturer for negligence purposes because it held itself out as the manufacturer through branding and undisclosed sourcing.
- The evidence permitted the jury to find negligent design and failure to warn, given the machine’s latent propensity to trigger while unplugged, its sensitivity to minor disturbances, and the lack of shielding and adequate warnings/instructions.
- Schmitt’s injury was a foreseeable result of leaving an unguarded, energized mechanism accessible in a school setting without adequate warnings.
- The $35,000 award was supported by the evidence and not so large as to indicate improper motive; alleged instructional and evidentiary errors were harmless or waived.

## Legal Principles

- A seller or distributor that represents a product as its own and appears to be the manufacturer may be held to a manufacturer’s standard of reasonable care in negligence.
- Negligence liability may rest on marketing and design choices that create non-obvious dangers, including failure to provide guards and failure to give adequate warnings or instructions about latent hazards.
- Foreseeability of contact by ordinary users or bystanders in the expected setting supports proximate-cause findings for injuries resulting from concealed dangerous conditions.
- Appellate reversal based on trial-management complaints requires preserved error and prejudice; otherwise, issues may be waived or treated as harmless.

## Conclusion

The court held that a distributor that brands a product as its own may be liable as an apparent manufacturer and affirmed a negligence verdict where an unguarded pitching machine, capable of unexpectedly activating while unplugged, was sold without adequate warnings or operating instructions and foreseeably injured a student.


Dudley Sports Co. v. Schmitt, 279 N.E.2d 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972)