Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd.
652 N.W.2d 159, 48 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 934, 2002 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 202 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product design defect case, a plaintiff must prove the foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, the omission of which renders the product not reasonably safe. Furthermore, a civil conspiracy claim can be based on underlying conduct that is not an intentional tort, so long as the conduct is otherwise actionable.
Facts:
- Robert Wright was a cigarette smoker.
- Wright smoked cigarettes manufactured by several companies, including Brooke Group Ltd. and others (Defendants).
- As a result of his smoking, Wright alleged he suffered damages.
- The cigarettes smoked by Wright were in the condition intended by the manufacturers and were substantially interchangeable with other cigarettes on the market.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert and DeAnn Wright filed a personal injury action against several cigarette manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
- The plaintiffs' complaint included claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, fraud, and civil conspiracy.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court largely overruled.
- Following the ruling on the motion to dismiss, the defendants requested that the federal district court certify several questions of state law to the Iowa Supreme Court.
- The U.S. District Court certified eight questions of law to the Iowa Supreme Court, finding they were determinative and involved unclear areas of Iowa law.
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 design defect products liability case, does Iowa law require a plaintiff to prove that the foreseeable risks of harm posed by a product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design?
Opinions:
Majority - Ternus, J.
Yes. In a product design defect case, the plaintiff must prove that the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design and that the omission of this alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. The court explicitly adopts the principles of Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability sections 1 and 2, abandoning the previous 'consumer expectation test' from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. The court reasons that the distinction between strict liability and negligence in design defect cases had become illusory, as both ultimately involve a risk-utility balancing analysis. The Restatement (Third) provides a more intellectually sound framework by requiring proof of a reasonable alternative design, which grounds liability in the reasonableness of the manufacturer's design choice rather than in ambiguous consumer expectations. This approach aligns with the court's prior decision in failure-to-warn cases and clarifies that design defect claims, regardless of label, rest on an identical risk-utility evaluation.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant shift in Iowa's products liability doctrine by formally adopting the Restatement (Third) of Torts for design defect claims. The decision abandons the more plaintiff-friendly 'consumer expectation' test in favor of the 'risk-utility' test, which requires proof of a reasonable alternative design. This change makes it more difficult and costly for plaintiffs to succeed in design defect cases, as it necessitates technical evidence and expert testimony to establish a feasible and safer alternative. The ruling effectively merges the standards for strict liability and negligence in design defect cases into a single cause of action, promoting clarity and eliminating the 'dysfunction' of applying two different labels to the same fundamental claim.
