This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P suffered injuries in an accident in his XL ultralight. P sued D and Sky-Ryders, Inc., the seller, alleging that Ds were strictly liable for placing a defectively designed, manufactured and tested ultralight on the market and that defendants failed to warn of the ultralight's dangerous and defective condition. As a result of the alleged defect, the wing of the ultralight tore in flight, causing it to crash. The jury found that the ultralight was not defective, and judgment was entered for Ds. The trial court excluded evidence of a repair kit and service bulletins issued after the accident with respect to P's single-occupant Eagle XL model and another similar model, the double-occupant 'Two Place' ultralight. The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in excluding this evidence and reversed and remanded. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.