Hughes v. Magic Chef, Inc.
1980 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 787, 288 N.W.2d 542 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a strict products liability action, a plaintiff's failure to discover a defect does not bar recovery, as this is a form of contributory negligence which is not a defense. Product misuse is not an affirmative defense but is part of the plaintiff's burden to prove a reasonably foreseeable use, while assumption of risk is an affirmative defense requiring proof that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered a known danger.
Facts:
- Magic Chef, Inc. manufactured a stove owned by Vincent E. Hughes, which was located in his mobile home and fueled by a propane gas tank.
- On March 7, 1976, the propane tank ran dry.
- After the tank was refilled that evening, two pilot lights on the top of the stove were re-lit by a serviceman.
- A third pilot light, located inside the oven broiler cavity, was not re-ignited.
- On March 9, 1976, Hughes attempted to use the stove.
- A buildup of propane gas from the unlit pilot light caused the stove to explode, severely burning Hughes.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent and Eileen Hughes brought a strict liability action against Magic Chef, Inc. in an Iowa trial court.
- Magic Chef asserted the affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and misuse of product.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Magic Chef.
- The Hugheses' motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court.
- The Hugheses, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa, the state's highest court. Magic Chef, Inc. was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a strict products liability action, does a plaintiff's failure to discover a defect through ordinary inspection bar their recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Uhlenhopp, Justice
No. A plaintiff's recovery in a strict liability action is not barred by their failure to discover a defect through ordinary inspection. The court held that jury instructions were erroneous for three primary reasons. First, requiring a plaintiff to prove a defect was not discoverable by ordinary inspection improperly introduces contributory negligence as a defense, which is invalid in a strict liability case under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, Comment n. Second, the court clarified that product misuse is not an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove; rather, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that their use of the product was reasonably foreseeable as part of their prima facie case. Treating misuse as an affirmative defense creates the potential for inconsistent jury findings and improperly shifts the burden of proof. Third, the assumption of risk instruction was fatally defective because it omitted two essential elements: that the plaintiff must have actual knowledge of the specific danger and that their choice to encounter the risk must be unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the structure of defenses based on a plaintiff's conduct in Iowa's strict products liability law. By firmly rejecting the failure to inspect as a defense, the court reinforces the 'strict' nature of the liability, focusing on the product's defect rather than the consumer's vigilance. The most impactful change is the reclassification of 'misuse' from an affirmative defense to a part of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, aligning Iowa with the modern trend and simplifying the burden of proof. This prevents jury confusion and ensures the focus remains on whether the plaintiff's use was foreseeable to the manufacturer, a core element of the defect analysis itself.
Unlock the full brief for Hughes v. Magic Chef, Inc.