Olson v. Prosoco, Inc.
1994 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 186, 522 N.W.2d 284, 1994 WL 515743 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Iowa, a product liability claim based on a failure to warn should be submitted to the jury under a negligence theory only, as submitting it under both negligence and strict liability is duplicative and erroneous because any distinction between the two theories in this context is illusory.
Facts:
- David Olson, a bricklayer foreman, worked for Seedorf Masonry Company.
- On December 15, 1988, Olson moved a fifteen-gallon drum of 'Sure Klean 600' mortar cleaner, manufactured and packaged by Prosoco, Inc., onto a pallet to prevent it from freezing to the ground.
- When Olson dropped the drum onto the pallet, the bung closure popped out.
- The hydrochloric acid-based cleaner splashed into Olson's right eye, causing him to eventually lose sight in that eye and require an artificial one.
- The drum itself was manufactured by Delta Drum Corporation and the bung closure was manufactured by Rieke Corporation.
Procedural Posture:
- David Olson and his family (Olson) sued Prosoco, Inc., Delta Drum Corporation, and Rieke Corporation in Iowa district court (trial court).
- Rieke Corp. and Delta Drum Corp. settled with Olson before trial.
- The case against Prosoco proceeded to a jury trial on theories of strict liability and negligence.
- The jury returned special verdicts finding Prosoco one-hundred percent at fault on both the negligence and strict liability claims.
- The district court entered judgment against Prosoco for an amount exceeding $735,000.
- Prosoco (Appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it an error for a trial court to submit a product liability claim for failure to warn to a jury under both negligence and strict liability theories?
Opinions:
Majority - Snell, Justice.
Yes, it is an error to submit a failure to warn claim under both negligence and strict liability theories because the principles are functionally identical and duplicative. The court reasoned that any posited distinction between the two theories in a failure-to-warn context is 'illusory.' Whether analyzing the defendant's knowledge or distinguishing between the product's condition and the defendant's conduct, the inquiry inevitably focuses on the reasonableness of the manufacturer's actions—the core of a negligence claim. The proper standard for a failure-to-warn claim is negligence, where the manufacturer is held to the standard of an expert in its field, focusing on whether it knew or should have known of the danger and failed to provide an adequate warning. Although submitting both claims was an error, it was not reversible in this case because the jury returned separate special verdicts finding Prosoco 100% at fault under each theory, insulating the valid negligence verdict from the erroneous strict liability submission.
Analysis:
This decision streamlines products liability law in Iowa by merging failure-to-warn claims into a singular negligence framework. It eliminates the potential for jury confusion that arises from duplicative instructions and prevents plaintiffs from asserting redundant theories of liability for the same underlying conduct. By holding that the 'state-of-the-art' defense is inapplicable to negligent failure-to-warn claims, the court reinforces that the focus is on the manufacturer's conduct, not the condition of the product itself. This ruling aligns Iowa with other jurisdictions that recognize the practical overlap between negligence and strict liability in warning defect cases and clarifies the analytical approach for future litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Olson v. Prosoco, Inc.