Gish, a long haul trucker, arrived at a plant to pick up a load of fertilizer. His truck was pulling a trailer made by Timpte Industries.
It is an open-top, twin-hopper trailer, loaded from above by a downspout that pours fertilizer into the hoppers. Because the downspout was not going into position, Gish climbed on top of the trailer. He walked out along a top rail that is about five inches wide so he could grab the downspout and put it in position to pour in the fertilizer. When he was on the rail, a gust of wind blew and he fell to the ground, suffering severe injuries.
Gish (and his workers' compensation insurance carrier) sued for design defect contending that the trailer should not have had a ladder that allowed a person to climb up to the rail and that the rail on top of the trailer is too narrow to walk on safely. Timpte argued that the danger of being on the rail was open and obvious. The district court granted summary judgment for Timpte; the appeals court reversed. Timpte appealed.

1. What could Gish have done to protect himself better from the risk, given what he was trying to accomplish?
2. This is a commercial truck trailer. Would the riskutility analysis be likely to produce the same result if this were a consumer product?