Bourne v. Marty Gilman, Inc.

Ball State University student Andrew Bourne (plaintiff) rushed onto a football field with a crowd that tore down a goalpost. The aluminum post fell on his back, rendering him paraplegic. Bourne and his parents (plaintiffs) sued Gilman Gear (defendant), the post’s manufacturer, claiming the post was defective and unreasonably dangerous because (1) it was foreseeable that fans would tear down goalposts, (2) the average person would not appreciate the risk, and (3) there were safer alternative designs. Gilman Gear president Neil Gilman testified that the company knew that fans tore down posts. The Bournes’ expert, Vaughn Adams, a safety-engineering specialist, testified that when fans attempted to pull down the posts, Gilman Gear’s posts would bend and then snap suddenly, falling abruptly on people who mistakenly believed the posts would fall slowly enough to allow retreat. The posts were therefore unreasonably dangerous. Adams provided no scientific evidence to support his statements, instead basing his conclusions on the mere availability of alternative designs. He further testified that Gilman Gear was negligent for failing to test its posts to determine when they would break. The district court granted summary judgment for Gilman Gear, finding that because the risk of serious injury from a collapsing goalpost was obvious as a matter of law, the post was not unreasonably dangerous. The Bournes appealed.