Diana Glazer, the Surviving Spouse of Michael Glazer, Deceased, on Her Own Behalf and as Statutory Trustee For…

Summary

The court held that the statutory state-of-the-art affirmative defense remains available when later changes in roadway use render an originally compliant design substandard, so long as no superseding plan or design exists. The State nevertheless failed to establish the defense as a matter of law because the evidence permitted a finding that the open median was an unreasonably dangerous hazard, and the State presented no evidence of adequate warnings. The court therefore affirmed the trial judgment while vacating the contrary portion of the intermediate appellate opinion. Chief Justice Bales, dissenting in part and concurring in the result, would have held that the defense did not apply because the danger resulted from changed conditions rather than a defect inherent in the original design.