concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I agree that Terex was not entitled to a “state of the art” instruction and so would remand for retrial in any event, I cannot agree that the trial court *196abused its discretion in instructing the jury regarding the rebuttable presumption that a product is non-defective if it conforms to applicable governmental regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent in part.
Terex produced evidence that its bucket complied with ANSI A92.2, the standard applicable to trucks with aerial devices, and the plain language of Indiana Code section 34-20-5-1(2) supports the giving of a regulatory compliance instruction under such circumstances. To deny a manufacturer a regulatory compliance instruction because the regulations do not specifically address the risk at issue4 would, in my view, run counter to clear legislative intent. I agree with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s observation on that state’s similar provision that such statutes are designed “ ‘to give refuge to the manufacturer who is operating in good faith and [in] compliance of what the law requires him to do.’ ” Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 272 S.W.3d 521, 536 (Tenn.2008) (quoting Tuggle v. Raymond Corp., 868 S.W.2d 621, 625 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992)) (brackets in Tuggle ).5 Terex introduced evidence that it manufactured the bucket up to ANSI A92.2 standards and so is entitled to a regulatory compliance instruction.
This is not to say, however, that Instruction 26 should have directed a verdict for Terex based on regulatory compliance, and, in fact, it did not. Wade was free to attempt to counter evidence of compliance, as Final Instruction 26 clearly provided, with evidence that the bucket either did not actually comply with ANSI A92.2 or was defective despite its compliance. In other words, Wade was given the opportunity to prove that a reasonable manufacturer would have installed an interior step in the bucket whether ANSI A92.2 mandated it or not. As the Colorado Supreme Court has stated,
a product may be in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer notwithstanding the supplier’s compliance with a safety regulation related to that product. While undoubtedly compliance constitutes evidence that the product was not defective at the time of sale, it by no means is conclusive on the issue of defect.
*197Blueflame Gas. Inc. v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579, 591-92 (Colo.1984).6 On retrial, I would hold that Terex is entitled to instruct the jury on regulatory compliance, assuming, of course, that it presents the same or similar evidence on that question.
Because I believe that the trial court properly instructed the jury on regulatory compliance, I respectfully dissent in part.
. My interpretation of ANSI A92.2 is that it is entirely possible that ANSI considered the safety of ingress and egress in general and interior steps in particular in crafting the standard. The bucket specifications, particularly the requirement that the bucket walls be thirty-nine to forty-five inches high, seem to be an attempt to strike a balance between walls high enough to reduce the risk of falling out and low enough to allow for generally safe ingress and egress. Defendant’s Ex. M p. 28. I believe ANSI recognized that no one bucket design could be completely safe for both purposes, however, as reflected in the provision that "[d]uring operation of the aerial device the operator shall wear a body belt or harness and be connected to the aerial device with a lanyard at the platform position.” Defendant’s Ex. M p. 22. As for interior steps, it seems entirely possible that ANSI considered them but rejected them as unsafe, given the following provision: “The operator shall not use railings, planks, ladders or any other device in or on the work platform for achieving additional working height or reach.” Defendant’s Ex. M p. 22 (emphasis added).
. Tennessee Code section 29-28-104(a) provides as follows:
Compliance by a manufacturer or seller with any federal or state statute or administrative regulation existing at the time a product was manufactured and prescribing standards for design, inspection, testing, manufacture, labeling, warning or instructions for use of a product, shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the product is not in an unreasonably dangerous condition in regard to matters covered by these standards.
. Colorado’s regulatory compliance statute provides, in relevant part, as follows:
(1) In any p-oduct liability action, it shall be rebuttably presumed that the product which caused the injury, death, or property damage was not defective and that the manufacturer or seller thereof was not negligent if the produc':
(a) Prior to sale by the manufacturer, conformed to the state of the art, as distinguished from industry standards, applicable to such product in existence at the time of sale; or
(b) Complied with, at the time of sale by the manufacturer, any applicable code, standard, or regulation adopted or promulgated by the United States or by this state, or by any agency of the United States or of this state.
Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-403.