Understanding Strict & Products Liability in Iowa

What is Strict Liability?

“[S]trict liability means liability that exists even in the absence of negligence or intent to harm.” (See Hagen v. Texaco Refining Marketing (1995) 526 N.W.2d 531, 537.)

“In common-law strict liability cases, we have consistently required that the defendant's actions be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages.” (See id; see e.g., National Steel Service Center v. Gibbons (1982) 319 N.W.2d 269, 270 [person who engages in ultrahazardous activity is liable for the consequences proximately resulting from the activity]; Haumersen v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 257 N.W.2d 7, 15 [ordinary tort rules of causation apply in strict products liability cases].)

What is Products Liability?

“A product contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.” (See Scott v. Dutton-Lainson Co. (2009) 774 N.W.2d 501, 505; Third Products Restatement § 2(a), at 14.)

“This definition is consistent with strict liability because fault is assessed regardless of the exercise of all possible care.” (See id; see Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd. (2002) 652 N.W.2d 159, 168 [The Products Restatement demonstrates a recognition that strict liability is appropriate in manufacturing defect cases, but negligence principles are more suitable for other defective product cases].)

“A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warning.” (See Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd. (2002) 652 N.W.2d 159, 168.)

Difference between Strict Liability and Negligence

“The essential difference between an action in negligence and one in strict liability (or breach of warranty) lies not in the condition of the product but in the requirement in the negligence action of additional proof regarding the nature of the defendant's conduct.” (See Chown v. USM Corp. (1980) 297 N.W.2d 218, 220; J. Wade, On Product ‘Design Defects’ and Their Actionability, 33 Vand.L.Rev. 551, 553 (1980).)

“In the negligence action, not only must the product itself be found actionable, but the defendant must also be found negligent in letting the product get into that dangerous condition, or in failing to discover the condition and take reasonable action to eliminate it. In strict liability, this is not required; all that the plaintiff must do is show that the product was in the dangerous condition when it left the defendant's control.” (See id.)

Recovering on a Strict Liability Claim

“To recover on a strict liability claim, the plaintiff must show, among other things, he or she used the product in the intended manner or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by defendant.” (See Hughes v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. (1992) 490 N.W.2d 75, 78; Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equip. Co. (1990) 457 N.W.2d 911, 916; Osborn v. Massey Ferguson, Inc. (1980) 290 N.W.2d 893, 901.)

Burden of Proof for Strict and Products Liability

“For a plaintiff to prove that a product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, he [or she] must show the defect in the product was not one contemplated by the user or consumer which would be unreasonably dangerous to him in the normal and intended use or consumption thereof.” (See Aller v. Rodgers Machinery Mfg. Co., Inc. (1978) 268 N.W.2d 830, 834; Kleve v. General Motors Corporation (1973) 210 N.W.2d 568, 571.)

“In addition, plaintiff has the burden of proving his [or her] injury or damage was proximately caused by a defect in design or manufacture of the product which existed at the time the product left the control of the seller or manufacturer.” (See id.)

“Plaintiff also has the burden under the doctrine of strict liability of proving the defective condition of the product makes it unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” (See id.)

“Such proof as is required of plaintiff in this connection does not necessarily rest on direct evidence. It can be established by circumstantial evidence.” (See id; Kleve v. General Motors Corporation (1973) 210 N.W.2d 568, 571.)

Standard of Review for Strict and Products Liability

“The proper inquiry is to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence . . . to support the challenged finding.” (See Beverlin v. Balzer Brothers, No. 0-784 / 99-1903, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 9, 2001); Boham v. City of Sioux City (1997) 567 N.W.2d 431, 435.)

“In applying the standard, it is well settled if reasonable minds could differ on an issue in light of the evidence presented, the court must submit the issue to the jury.” (See id; Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Hullinger (1990) 459 N.W.2d 889, 894.)

“Even if certain facts are not in dispute, a jury question exists if reasonable minds might draw different inferences from those facts.” (See id; Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(17).)

“In proving liability under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff must prove that a design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous.” (See Hughes v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. (1994) 522 N.W.2d 294, 299; Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equipment Co. (1990) 457 N.W.2d 911, 918.)

“Proof of unreasonableness requires the jury to balance the utility of a product against the risk of its use. In deciding whether the risks outweigh the utility, the jury may consider the availability of a safer alternative design.” (See id; Chown v. USM Corp. (1980) 297 N.W.2d 218, 220-21.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on Strict Liability and Products Liability

It is well settled that “to establish strict liability, it is necessary for plaintiff to show the design of the product was unreasonably dangerous.” (See Zimmer v. Versa Products, Inc., No. 9-814 / 98-2292, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2000); Chown v. USM Corp. (1980) 297 N.W.2d 218, 220.)

It is also well settled that “under Iowa law a plaintiff in a products liability case must prove that the injury causing product was a product manufactured or supplied by the defendant. A causal connection must be shown between the defendant's alleged negligence and the injury. The conduct of a party is a proximate cause of damage when it is a substantial factor in producing damage and when the damage would not have happened except for the conduct. Proximate cause is ordinarily a question for the jury.” (See Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994) 510 N.W.2d 854, 858; Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly Co. (1986) 386 N.W.2d 67, 76; 1 Iowa Civil Jury Instructions 700.3 (1991); Johnson v. Interstate Power Co. (1992) 481 N.W.2d 310, 323; Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Fund (1993) 496 N.W.2d 247, 254.)