to defective-design claims because the legislature had omitted that defense. 409 F.3d at 850. Another important feature of the 1995 amendments was the addition of the requirement that liability under the IPLA “be determined in accordance with the principles of comparative fault.” Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791, 794 (Ind.2011). Notably absent from the current statute is a defense or presumption that adequate warnings render a product not defective and not unreasonably dangerous. The statute provides only three defenses: incurred risk, misuse (not reasonably foreseeable), and modification. Ind.Code §§ 34-20-6-3 to -5. These are the only defenses available in an action under the IPLA. See McGraw-Edison v. Ne. Rural Electric Membership Corp., 678 N.E.2d 1120, 1123-25 (Ind.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Mesman, 409 F.3d at 850. The statute
holding that there were no public policy considerations to prevent a diving school from limiting liability for its own negligence holding that disclaimer in purchase agreement purportedly limiting sellers liability was no defense to action under ipla recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim holding that when no consideration given for contest prize there is no purchase under dtpa holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability