# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 26 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
J u d i t h W u r s t e r , i n d i v i d

u a l l y a n d a s i t s a d m i n i s t r a t o r e x e c u t o r T h e E s t a

t e o f J a m e s W u r s t e r

Plai nt if f - Ap pe ll an t

v.

The Pla st ic s Gro up , Inc ., do in g b us in es s as W ed co , do in g b us in es s as W ed co

Mo ul de d P ro du ct s C om

pa ny
Defen da nt

- App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 18 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 25 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ja m es W ur st er (“ Mr. W ur st er”) su ffer ed fat al bu r n s w h e n a ga s can

m an uf act ur e d by App el le e The Pl as ti cs Gro up , In c. (“ TPG”) ex pl od ed as he was bu rn in g ga rb ag e on hi s farm in I o w a

. His wife
, Ju di th W ur st er (“ Mrs

. W ur st er”)
, fil ed su it , b ot h in he r pe rs on al cap aci ty and in rep res en ta ti ve cap aci ty for t he est at e

an d he irs -at -la w, ag ai ns t TPG. Afte r tri al
, a jury ren de red a t a k e

- n o th in g ve rd ic tu n d er Io wa’s co m pa rat iv e fau lt sc he m e, fin di ng TPG fo rty-fiv e pe rcen t at fau lt f o r Mr. W ur st er’s de at h du e to it s fai lu re to pr ov id e ad eq ua te warn in gs on th e ga s can

an d ap po rti on in g th e ba la nc e of th e fau lt to Mr. W ur st er. See Io wa Co de § 66 8.3 (1 ).
Mrs

. W ur st er ap pe al s, as se rti ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by (1 ) refu si ng to gi ve he r 1

pr op os ed de si gn de fect in st ru ct io n; (2 ) in st ru ct in g th e jury on reas on ab le al te rn at iv e de si gn ; (3 ) in cl ud in g t wo s ep arat e as su m pt io n o f ri sk in st ru ct io ns ; an d (4 ) gr an ti ng jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law o n h er p os t-s al e fai lu re-t o- warn cla im . W e aff irm.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In th e la te m or ni ng of Feb ru ary 8, 20 13
, Mr. W ur st er st oo d in th e ba ck y ard of
hi s farm ho us e in Leno x, Io wa, att em pt in g t o b ur n so m e tra sh in a bu rn ba rrel

. As a
fir e or em be rs bu rn ed in si de th e ba rrel
, Mr. W ur st er po ur ed ga so li ne fro m a ga s can in to th e ba rrel

. Thi s cau se d a fla m e to tra ve l up th e st ream of g as ol in e in to th e can

. Vap or s i ns id e th e can ig ni te d, an d t he can ex pl od ed

.

W he n Mrs

. W ur st er he ard th e ex pl os io n, sh e ru sh ed ou ts id e to se e he r hu sb an d

on fir e, ru nn in g to ward he r, an d pl e a d i n g f o r he lp

. By th e ti m e th ey were ab le to

ex ti ng ui sh th e fi re, i t h ad bu rn ed m os t of Mr. W ur st er’s cl ot hi ng an d s ki n. Des pi te hi s in juri es , Mr. W ur st er was lu ci d and co he ren t. He le t a res po nd in g of fic er in si de
th e farm ho us e an d to ld th e o f f i c er “ he ha d be en in th e pr oc es s of st art in g a fir e to bu rn so m e sc rap s aro un d th e y ard area th ere an d a ga s can ex pl od ed an d th at ’s wha t

cau se d t he in

juri es .”

Mr. W ur st er was ru sh ed by he li co pt er t o a ho sp it al in Iowa Ci ty. W he n Mrs

. W ur st er arri ve d at th e ho sp it al
, sh e was to ld th at he r hu sb an d ’s i n ju r ie s were fat al
,
wou ld in ev it ab ly l ead to syste m ic or ga n fai lu r e , an d th at th e on ly car e th at m ed ic al

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es R. W ol le
, Uni te d St at es D ist ri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-st aff co ul d pr ov id e was to ke ep Mr. W ur st er as co m fo rta bl e as po ss ib le

. Mr. W ur st er

di ed th e n ex t d ay

wit h h is wife an d s om e o f hi s ch il dr en by his si de

.

Th e ga s can us ed by Mr. W ur st er was a Mo de l W 52 0 can t h a t TP G

m an uf act ur ed in Nov em

be r 20 00 un de r th e br an d na m e W ed co

. It is un kn own whe n

an d wh ere t he W

ur st ers pu rch as ed th e can . Em bo ss ed on on e si de of t he can was a

warn in g:

GASO LI NE DANGER – FLAMMAB LE EXTREME LY FLAMMABLE – VAPORS CAN EXPLODE

. . .

CAUTIO N:

. . . VAPORS CAN BE IG NIT ED BY A SPARK OR FLAME SO URCE MANY FEET AWAY – K EEP AWAY FROM FLAME

. . . AND OTHE R SOURCES OF I GNI TI ON –

KEE P CONTAINE R CLOSED

The can ha d a rem ov a b le fro nt po ur in g no zzl e th at co nt ai ne d a de br is sc reen

. The
de br is sc reen fu nc ti on ed as a fla m e arre st er. A f la m e arre st er is a mes h sc reen th at

a l l o w s ai r an d li qu id —b ut no t sp ark s an d fla m es —t o pa ss th ro ug h. The c a n h a d a

ve nt h o l e i n t h e ba ck th at was no t pr ot ect ed by a m es h sc reen

. The ex pe rts who

te st ifi ed at tri al di d no t ag ree on whe th er Mr. W ur st er ha d po ur ed ga s ou t of th e m ai n ho le of t he can aft er re m ov in g t he no zzl e o r ou t o f th e rea r ve nt ho le

.

The po ss ib il it y of fir e whi le us in g a ga s can ha s be en kn own fo r ov er a cen tu ry ,
an d effo rts to av oi d su ch fir es by us e of a fla m e arre st er can de si gn da te to at le as t a

pa te nt in 18 71

. Safe ty or ga ni zat io ns an d Co ns um er Rep or ts ha ve ur ge d th e in du st ry
to ta ke pr ecau ti on s to pr ot ect ag ai ns t ex pl os io ns cau se d by th e la ck of a fla m e arre st er si nc e th e 19 70 s. By th e ti m e th e can in qu es ti on was m an uf act ur ed
, m an y of TPG’ s

co m pe ti to rs were m an uf

act ur in g can s th at in cl ud ed fla m e arre st ers

. TPG co ul d ha ve

-3

-ad de d a ba sk et -type flam e arre st er to its ga s can s for as lit tl e as fiv e to te n c en ts pe r

can

.

TP G a c k n o wled ge d at tri al th at whi le it was aware of th e po ss ib il it y th a t

ex pl os io ns co ul d be cau se d by th e la ck of fla m e arre st ers by at le as t 20 06
, it pr ov id ed

no po st -s al e warn in gs to pr ev io us pu rch as ers of it s can s. The y di d, ho wev er, ch an ge th e warn in g la be l on ne wly m an uf act ur ed can s. A TPG rep res en ta ti ve ex pl ai ne d th e

co m pa ny do es no t m ak e ret ai l s a l e s o f it s pr od uc ts an d ha d no way of id en ti fy in g whe re Mr. W ur st er pu rch as ed th e can or whe th er he was th e or i g i n a l p u r ch as er. W hi le TPG was aware of whi ch bi g bo x ret ai le rs it so ld it s pr od uc ts to , it ha d no way of kn owi ng whi ch pa rti cu la r st or es so ld th e W520 ga s ca n.

Thi s ap pe al fo cu se s pr im ari ly on th e co ur t’s jury i n s t ru ct io ns

. The cas e was tri ed to a jury on a ne gl ig en ce th eo ry , wit h th e jury be in g in st ru ct ed on two

sp eci fic at io ns of ne gl ig en ce req ue st ed by Mrs

. W urste r. In st ru ct io n No. 12 st at ed th at i n or de r to pr ev ai l on th e ne gl ig en ce cl ai m , Mrs

. W ur st er m us t pr ov e TPG wa s

ne gl ig en t in (1 ) it s “ de si gn of it s ga s can s” an d/ or (2 ) it s “ fai lu re to pr ov id e ad eq ua te
ga s ca n war ni ng s.”

In st ru ct io n Nos

. 13 an d 18 are th e as su m pt io n of ris k in st ru ct io ns at is su e in
th is ap pe al . Ins tru ct io n No . 13 read :

TPG c la im s th at Ja m es W ur st er was at fau l t b y be in g ne gl ig en t. In ord er t o p ro ve th is cla im , it m us t p ro ve

1. Ja m es W ur st er was ne gl ig en t in on e or m or e of th e fo ll owi ng way s:

a. m is us e of th e ga s can by at te m pt in g to po ur ga so li ne on a fi re;

-4

-b. m is us e of th e g a s can by at te m pt in g to po ur ga so li ne fro m th e v en t h ol e; an d

c. un reas on ab le ass um

pt io n o f th e ri sk

.

2. J am es W

ur st er’s fau lt was a cau se of p la in ti ffs ’ da m ag e.

If TPG fai le d t o p ro ve eit he r of th es e pr op os it io ns , TPG ha s no t pr ov ed it s de fen se

. If T PG ha s pr ov ed bo th of th es e pr op os it io ns , th en y ou wil l as si gn a pe rcen ta ge of fau lt ag ai ns t Ja m es W ur st er an d in cl ud e hi s fau lt in th e to ta l pe rce n ta ge of fau lt fo un d by y ou in an swe rin g th e sp eci al ve rd ic ts

.

In st ru ct io n No . 18 read :

TPG cl ai m s th at Ja m es W ur st er un reas on ab ly as su m ed th e ris k by
po ur in g g as ol in e o nt o t he fir e o r us in g t he ve nt ho le to po ur ga so li ne

.

To pr ov e th is de fen se , TPG m us t pr ov e al l of th e fo ll owi ng pr op os it io ns :

1. J am es W

ur st er k ne w th e ri sk was p res en t.

2. J am es W

ur st er u nd ers to od th e n at ur e o f th e ri sk to hi m se lf.

3. Nev ert he le ss , Ja m es W ur st er un reas on ab l y , free ly, an d

vo lu nt ari ly too k t he ris k.

4. J a mes Wu r st er’s as su m pt io n of th e ris k was a cau se of pl ai nt iff s’ dam ag e.

If TPG h as fai le d to pr ov e an y of th es e pr op os it io ns , it ha s no t pr ov ed th is de fen se

. If TPG ha s pr ov ed al l th es e pr op os it io ns , th en y ou wil l as si gn a pe rcen ta ge of fau lt ag ai ns t Ja m es W ur st er an d in cl ud e it in th e to ta l pe rcen ta ge of fau lt
, if an y , fo un d by y ou in y ou r an swe rs to th e sp eci al ve rd ic ts

.

-5

-Mrs

. W ur st er ob jecte d un su cces sf

ul ly to su bm it ti ng as su m pt i o n o f r i s k bo th as a

ne gl ig en ce fa ct or

in th e co m

pa rat iv e fau lt in st ru ct io n a nd as a sep arat e in st ru ct io n.

Mrs

. W ur st er pr op os ed a jury in st ru ct io n ba se d up on I o wa Ci vi l Ju ry In st ru ct io n 10 00 .2, whi ch is ti tl ed “ Des ig n Defec t - Ess en ti al s fo r Rec ov ery. ” At th e in st ru ct io ns co n f

e r e n c e , th e co ur t pr op os ed a m od ifi ed ve rs io n of Mrs

. W ur st er’s

pr op os ed in st ru ct io n as Ju ry In st ru ct io n No. 14

. The co ur t’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n was

su bs t an ti al ly si m il ar to Mrs

. W ur st er’s ex cep t fo r it s m en ti on of st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y in th e p ream

bl e:

Pl ai nt iff s cl ai m TPG was at fau lt un de r a th eo ry of st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y

. In or de r to pr ov e a cl ai m of de si gn de fect
, th ey m us t pr ov e al l of th e fo ll owi ng pro po si ti on s:

1. TPG m an uf

act ur ed th e g as can ,

2. TPG was en ga ge d i n t he bu si ne ss of m an uf act ur in g g as can s,

3. The ga s can di d no t co m pl y wit h th e st at e of th e art at th e ti m e of it s m an uf

act ur e,

4. The ga s can was in a de fect iv e co nd it io n at th e ti m e it le ft TPG’ s co nt ro l, i n t ha t i t l ack ed fla m e arr es to rs on all op en in gs

.

5. A reas on ab le al te rn at iv e sa fer de si gn co ul d ha ve be en pr act ic al ly ado pt ed at t he ti m e o f sa le or d is tri bu ti on

.

6. The al te rn at iv e de si gn wou ld ha ve r e d u c e d or av oi de d th e fo res eeab le ris ks of h arm po se d b y th e g as can

.

7. The om is si on of th e al te rn at iv e de si gn ren de rs th e ga s can no t

reas on ab ly safe.

-6

-8. The al te rn a t i ve de si gn wou ld ha ve red uc ed or pr ev en te d pl ai nt iff s’ har m

. [9 ]. The a m ou nt of d am ag e.

If pl ai nt iff

s fai le d to pr ov e an y of th es e pr op os it io ns , th ey are no t

en ti tl ed to da m ag es on th is th eo ry of reco ve ry

. If pl ai nt iff s ha ve pr ov ed al l of th e s e p r o po si ti on s, th en y ou wil l co ns id er th e de fen se of

co m pa rat iv e fau lt

.

Co un se l fo r TPG ob

jecte d to th e m en ti on of st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y , arg ui ng de fect iv e d e s i gn un de r Io wa la w is a ne gl ig en ce co nc ep t, an d su gg es te d th e wor ds “ st ric t

pr oduc ts lia

bilit y ” be rep la ced wit h “ de fect iv e de si gn .” W he n Mrs

. W ur st er’s co unse l
in si st ed th e “ in st ru ct io n is no t a ne gl ig en ce in st ru ct io n, an d it wou ld be erro r to gi ve it if th e co ur t is no t gi vi ng a st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y in st ru ct io n,” th e co ur t de ci de d no t

to gi ve Ju ry

Ins tru ct io n No . 14

.

Bo th pa rti es pr op os ed a reas on ab le al te rn at ive de sig n ins tr uc tio n ba se d on Io wa Ci vi l Ju ry In st ru ct io n 10 00 .4, w h i ch is th e co un te rp art to —an d sp eci fic al ly
refe ren ces —Io wa Ci vi l Ju ry In st ru ct io n 10 00 .2. Dur in g th e in st ru ct io ns co nf eren ce, Mrs

. W ur st er’s at to rn ey arg ue d th e co ur t co ul d no t gi ve I ns tru ct io n No. 15 —t he

co ur t’ s m odi fi ed ve rs ion of he r pr opos ed reas on ab le al te rn at iv e de si gn in st ru ct io n— if
it di d no t al so gi ve In st ru ct io n No. 14

. The co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on , res po nd in g

“ 15 is ne ed ed for th e q ue st io n o f de si gn ne gl ig en ce.” Ins tru ct io n No . 15 in st ru ct ed
th e jury to co ns id er a li st of se ve ral fact or s “ to de te rm in e whe th er an al te rn at iv e de si gn is reas on ab le an d whe th er it s om is si on ren de rs th e ga s can no t reas on ab l y

sa fe.”

At th e co nc lu si on of th e ev id en ce, th e co ur t gr an te d TPG’ s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w o n Mrs . Wurs te r’s po st -s al e fai lu re-t o- warn cla im . On Apr il 12
, 20 17
, t h e jury ret ur ne d a sp eci al ve rd ic t, fin di ng TPG di d no t se ll a de fect iv el y de si gn ed ga s can bu t TP G d i d fai l to pr ov id e ad eq ua te warn in gs on th e

-7

-ga s can

. The jury de te rm in ed TPG was fo rty-fiv e pe rcen t at fau lt fo r Mr. W ur st er’s
in juri es an d Mr. W ur st er was fif ty-fiv e pe rcen t at fau lt

. P ur su an t to th e Io wa Co m pa rat iv e Fau lt Act, jud gm en t was en te red fo r TPG. Th e co ur t de ni ed Mrs

. 2
W ur st er’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

II

. Dis cus si on

A. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns

Mrs

. W ur st er as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns erro ne ou sl y

em ph as iz ed Mr. W ur st er’s al le ge d fau lt an d fai le d to pr es en t wha t sh e p e r c e i v es to be he r pr im ary cl ai m

. W e rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n a co ur t’s j ur y in st ru ct io ns

. Bro wn v. San da ls Res or ts In t’l, 28 4 F.3 d 94 9, 95 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). The di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d d i sc ret io n in fo rm ul at in g jury in st ru ct io ns

. Id . ( qu ot in g B&B Hard ware, In c. v. Harg is In du s., 25 2 F.3 d 10 10
, 10 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). The in st ru ct io ns “ ta ke n

as a who le ” m

us t “ fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly rep res en t th e ev id en ce an d ap pl ic ab le la w in
li gh t o f t h e i s s ue s pr es en te d to th e jury in a pa rti cu la r cas e.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Fo rd v. GACS, In c., 26 5 F.3 d 67 0, 67 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). W e ha ve no te d th at jury in st ru ct io ns

ne ed no t be “ te ch ni cal ly pe rfec t or ev en a m od e l o f cl ari ty.” Id

. (q uo ti ng B&B
Hard ware, 25 2 F.3 d at 10 12 ). W he n rev ie win g a di st r i c t co ur t’s refu sa l to ad op t a
pr op os ed in st ru ct io n, we co ns id er a th ree- pa rt te st : “ th e pr op os ed in st ru ct io n m us t (1 )

co rrec tl y st at e th e ap pl ic ab le la w; (2 ) ad dr es s m at te rs no t ad eq ua te ly co ve red by th e

c h a rg e; an d (3 ) in vo lv e a po in t ‘so im po rta nt th at fai lu re to gi ve th e in s t r u c t i o n

se rio us ly im

pa ire d th e pa rty’ s ab il it y to pr es en t an effe ct iv e cas e.’” Co x v. Dub uq ue Ban k & Tr. Co
., 16 3 F.3 d 49 2, 49 6 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ) (q uo ti ng Tho m li so n v. Ci ty of
Om ah a, 63 F.3d 78 6, 7 91 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5) ).

I o w a Co de § 66 8.3 (1 ) st at es , “ Co nt rib ut or y fau lt sh al l no t ba r reco ve ry

. . . 2

un le ss th e cl ai m an t be ars a gr eat er pe rcen ta ge of fau lt th an th e co m bi ne d pe rcen ta ge of fau lt at tri bu te d to th e de fen da nt s,

. . . bu t an y da m ag es al lo wed sh al l be di m in is he d in pro po rti on to th e am ou nt of f au lt att rib ut ab le to th e cl ai m an t.”

-8

-i. Des ig n Defec t In st ruct io n

Mrs

. W ur st er fir st co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d r e v e rs ib le erro r by
fai li ng to pr ov id e a de si gn de fect in st ru ct io n ba se d on Io wa Ci vi l Ju ry In st ru ct io n No.
10 00 .2. Sh e as se rts th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gi ve n ei th er he r pr op os ed in st ru ct io n or th e

co ur t’s pr op os ed In st ru ct io n No. 14

. Und er Io wa la w, Mrs

. W ur st er was no t en ti tl ed

to su bm it bo th a ne gl ig en ce cl ai m an d a st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m to th e jury ba se d on th e

sa m e de si gn de fect

. The Io wa Su pr em e Co ur t h a s he ld th at “ a co ur t sh ou ld no t

su bm it bo th a ne gl ig en ce clai m an d a st ric t lia bi li ty cl ai m ba se d on th e sa m e de si gn de fect si nc e bo th cl ai m s res t on an id en ti cal ris k- ut il it y ev a l u a t i o n

. ” W rig ht v. Bro ok e Grp . Ltd ., 65 2 N.W.2d 15 9, 16 9 (I owa 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The Io wa 3
Su pr em e Co ur t has al so he ld th at de si gn de fect cl ai m s are no t str ic t lia bi li ty cl ai m s. Sco tt v. Dut to n- Lain so n Co
., 77 4 N.W .2d 50 1, 50 5 (Io wa 20 09 ). See al so W rig ht
, 65 2 N.W .2d at 16 8 (“ The Pro du ct s Res ta te m en t de m on st rat es a reco gn it io n th at st ric t li ab il it y is ap pr op ria te in m an uf act ur in g de fect cas es , bu t ne gl ig en ce pr in ci pl es are

m or e su it ab le fo r ot he r de fect iv e pr od uc t cas es .”). The c o u r t p ro pe rly de cl in ed to gi ve In st ru ct io n No. 14 be cau se th e pr op os ed in st ru ct io n as dr aft ed was in co ns is te nt wit h Io wa la w.

Mrs

. W ur st er’s cl ai m th at sh e was de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t he r de si gn de fect cl ai m is eq ua ll y un av ai li ng

. W hi le an in st ru ct io n ba se d on Io wa Ci vi l Ju ry In st ru ct io n 10 00 .2 m ig ht ha ve se t fo rth th e de si gn de fect cl ai m m or e cl earl y th an th e

Mrs

. W ur st er arg ue s ou r de ci si on in McGu ire v. Dav id so n M f g

. Co rp ., 39 8 3 F.3 d 10 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), al lo ws a pl ai nt iff
, po st -Wrigh t, to br in g bo th cl ai m s. McGu ire is in ap po si te

. In McGu ire
, whe th er a pl ai nt iff can br in g b o t h a pr od uc t de fect cl ai m an d ne gl ig en ce cl ai m fo r th e sa m e de fect was no t be fo re th e co ur t. In st ead
, unde r pla in- error rev ie w, we co nc lu de d th at whi le co nf or m an ce wit h th e st at e of th e art is a co m

pl e t e d efen se un de r Io wa la w to pr od uc t-d efec t cl ai m s, th e Io wa Su pr em e Co ur t “ wou ld li ke ly fin d th at pr oo f of th e st at e-o f-t he -art de fen se do es no t

au to m at ic al ly ex on erat e a de fen da nt fro m li ab il it y fo r ge ne ral ne gl ig en ce.” Id

. at 10 10

.
-9

-co ur t’s fin al in st ru ct io ns di d, th e cl ai m an d it s el em en ts were pr es en te d to th e jury in

th e c o u r t ’s i n s t ru ct io ns

. In st ru ct io n No. 12 in cl ud ed de si gn de fect as on e of two

sp eci fic at io ns of ne gl ig en ce an d ex pl ai ne d th at TPG’ s ne gl ig en ce m us t hav e be en a

cau se of Mr. W ur st er’s in juri es

. In st ru ct io n No. 11 in st ru ct ed th at ne gl ig en ce is th e

“ fai lu re to us e or di na ry care

. . . whi ch a reas on ab ly care fu l pers on wou ld us e un de r si m il ar c irc um st an ces .” In st ru ct io n No. 15 pr ov id ed a li st of fact or s to gu id e th e jury’ s co ns id erat io n of ne gl ig en t de si gn , whi ch in vo lv ed a de te rm in at io n of “ whe th er

an al te rn at iv e de si gn [was ] reas on ab le an d whe t h e r i t s om is si on ren de r[ed ] th e ga s

can no t reas on ab ly sa fe” ba se d on “ th e fo res eeab le ris k s o f h a r m.” Loo ki ng to th e i n s t r uc ti on s as a who le
, as we m us t, Mrs

. W ur st er’s de si gn de fect cl ai m wa s

su ffi ci en tl y

pre se nt ed to th e jury. The co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n.

ii

. Rea so na bl e Alt erna tiv e Des ig n In st ruct io n

Mrs

. W ur st er ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it in st ru ct ed th e jury on

reas on ab le al te rn at iv e de s ig n in In st ru ct io n No. 15 de sp it e de cl in in g to gi ve In st ru ct io n No. 14 or he r pr op os ed de si gn de fect in st ru ct io n. In st ru ct io n No. 15 was ba se d on Io wa Ci vi l Ju ry In st ru ct io n No. 10 00 .4, whi ch Mrs

. Wu rs te r—c it in g no

au th or it y —as se rts can no t b e g iv en wit ho ut Iowa Civ il Ju ry Ins tru ct io n No. 1 00 0.2

. To th e co nt rary, “ [i]n t h e e x e r c i se of [a co ur t’s] br oa d di sc ret io n [in fo rm in g jury
in st ru ct io ns ], st at e-m an da te d in str uc tio n fo rm s m ay be gi ve n in th ei r en ti ret y or m ix ed
wit h o t h e r i n s t ru ct io ns th at th e di st ric t jud ge feel s are ap pr op ria te .” Ch oh li s v. Ces sn a Air craf

t Co ., 76 0 F .2d 90 1, 9 04 (8t h C ir. 1 98 5)

.

Mrs

. W ur st er al so arg ue s th at by “ gi vi ng In st ru ct io n No. 15 wit ho ut it s pa rtn er in st ru ct io n, th e co ur t crea te d ch ao s in th e in st ru ct io ns ” an d to ld th e jury “ wha t fact or s
to co ns id er whe n de ci di ng an is su e th at th e i n s t r uc ti on s ne ve r pr es en te d to th e jury

to de ci de .” W e d is ag ree. Th e co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury on d es ig n d efec t b as ed on a

ne gl ig en ce th eo ry in In st ru ct io n No. 12

. In st ru ct io n No. 15 pe rta in ed to whe th er TPG

act ed reas on ab ly by no t us in g an al te rn at iv e de si gn fo r it s ga s can s. The in st ru ct io n

-1 0-was ne ces sa ry to p r o v i d e t h e jury wit h th e pr op er fact or s fo r co nd uc ti ng th e

ris k- ut il it y te st req ui red fo r de si gn de fect cl ai m s. The co ur t di d no t err by in st ru ct in g th e jury on reas on ab le alt ern at iv e d es ig n.

ii i. Ass umptio n o f Ris k Ins truc tio ns

Mrs

. W ur st er’s fin al ch al le n g e t o th e jury in st ru ct io ns in vo lv es th e di st ric t

co ur t’s i nc lu si on of as su m pt io n o f ri sk as b ot h a sp eci es of f au lt in th e co m

pa rat iv e fau lt in st ru ct io n a nd as a se pa rat e in st ru ct io n. Mrs. Wurs te r arg ue s t he in st ru ct io ns

u n d u ly em

ph as iz ed he r hu sb an d’s al le ge d fau lt an d vi ol at ed th e Io wa Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Co ke r v. Abe ll -Ho we Co
., 49 1 N.W .2d 14 3 (Io wa 19 92 ), in whi ch
th e co ur t he ld “ as su m

pt io n of ris k m ay no t be pl ead ed or in st ru ct ed up on as a se pa rat e de fen se in cas es in whi ch co nt rib ut or y ne gl ig en ce i s an av ai la bl e d efen se un de r th e Io wa Co m

pa rat iv e Fau lt Act . . .” Id . at 1 48

.

Here, the di st ric t cou rt in st ru ct ed th e jury in a m an ne r so m ewh at in co ns is te nt wit h Co ke r. The co ur t in cl ud ed as su m pt io n of ris k as a sp eci es of fau lt in In st ru ct io n No. 13
, id en ti fy in g as su m pt io n of ris k as on e of th ree way s in whi ch Mr. W ur st er was al le ge dl y ne gl ig en t. The in st ru ct io n fu rth er d ire ct ed th e jury to a ss ig n fa ul t ag ai ns t
Mr. W ur st er if th e ev id en ce est ab li sh ed th e un reas on ab le as su m pt io n of ris k cau se d
hi s in juri es

. The di st ric t co ur t th en ga ve a se pa rat e as su m pt io n of ris k in st ru ct io n in
In st ru ct io n No. 18

. The in s t r u c t i on st at ed
, “ TPG cl ai m s th at [Mr .] W ur st er

un reas on ab ly as su m ed th e ris k by po ur in g ga so li ne o nt o th e fir e or us in g th e ve nt h o l e t o po ur ga so li ne

. To pr ov e th is de fen se , TPG m us t pr ov e al l of th e fo ll o w i n g
pr op os it io ns .” The in st ru ct io n li st ed th e fo ur el em en ts of as su m pt io n of ris k an d th en in st ru ct ed th e jury, “ If TPG h as fai le d to pr ov e an y of th es e pr op os it io ns , i t ha s no t

pr ov ed th is de fen se .” The in st ru ct io n’s us e o f t h e ph ras e “ th is de fen se ” ap pe ars at fir st bl us h to pr es en t th e as su m pt io n of ris k do ct rin e as bo th a sp eci es of fau lt an d a

se pa rat e d efen se

.

-1 1-Thi s vi ew fai ls
, ho wev er, to ta ke in to acco un t th e fin al di rect or , whi ch si m pl y di rect s th e jury to ap po rti on su ch fau lt as m ay ha ve be en cau se d by th e un reas on ab le

as su m pt io n of ris k. In co nt ex t, th e in st ru ct io n is si m pl y a de fin it io n se tt in g fo rth th e el em en ts of an un re as on ab le as su m pt io n of ris k. The in cl us io n of th e ph ras e “ th is
de fen se ,” whi le un fo rtu na te , do es no t di rect th e jury to do an y th in g ot he r th an wha t it was di rect ed to do in In st ru ct i o n N o

. 1 3. The in st ru ct io n pr ov id ed a ne ces sa ry de fin it io n of as su m

pt io n of ris k th at was ot he rwis e ab se nt fro m th e jury in st ru ct io ns

.

W hi le th e in st r u c t i o n s are no m od el of cl ari ty, ou r rev ie w of th e reco rd
de m on st rat es no pr ejud ic e. Dur in g cl os in g arg um en t, Mrs

. W ur st er’s co un se l arg ue d

t o t h e jury th at th ere was no do ub t ab ou t th e fact s an d th ere was no do ub t th e f i x e s

were ea sy. Co un se l t ol d t he juro rs th at lo ok in g a t t he in st ru ct io ns wou ld “ le ad [th e juro rs ] ho m e an d al lo w [th em ] to reac h a f a i r v e r d i c t in th e cas e.” He hi gh li gh te d

cert ai n jury in st ru ct io ns , in cl ud in g No. 12 th at req ui red Mrs

. W ur st er to pr ov e ei th er de si gn de fect or fai lu re to pr ov id e ad eq ua te warn in gs , no t bo th cl ai m s. Co un se l fo r bo th si de s di sc us se d ex te ns iv el y al lo cat io n of fau lt

. Mrs

. W ur st er fo cu se d on th e la ck
of a fla m e arre st er an d th e in ex pe ns iv e an d si m pl e fix es av ai la bl e. TPG di rect ed th e jury’ s at te nt io n to ev id en ce su gg es ti ng m is us e. Mrs

. W ur st er’s co un se l wen t th ro ug h
th e qu es ti on s on th e sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm in de ta il wit h th e jury, su gg es ti ng to th e jury
th e ap pr op ria te an swe rs to cert ai n qu es ti on s. Th e jury was well in fo rm ed ab ou t th e is su es in vo lv ed in th e cas e an d no th in g in th e jury in st ru ct io ns pr ec l u d ed Mrs

. W ur st er fro m

fai rly pres en ti ng or arg ui ng he r cl ai m s. Un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , we fin d no pr ejud ic e. See Sh erm an v. W in co Fi rewo rk s, In c., 53 2 F.3 d 70 9, 72 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Bu rry v. Eus ti s Pl um bi ng & Heat in g, In c., 24 3 F.3 d 43 2, 43 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )) (“ Rev ers al is on ly warra nt ed if a p art y ’s su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts are p reju di ced by
in st ru ct io na l er ro r.”).

-1 2-B. Pos t-Sa le Fai lu re-t o- Wa rn Cl ai m

Mrs

. W ur st er arg ue s th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt erre d whe n it gr an te d jud gm en t as a
mat t e r o f la w f

or TPG o n he r po st -s al e fai lu re-t o- warn cl ai m

. W e rev ie w a di st ri c t

co ur t’s gr an t of jud gm en t a s a m at te r of la w de no vo , “ vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty whi le gi vi ng th at pa rty th e be ne fit of al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Ch il dr en ’s Bro ad

. Co rp

. v. W al t Dis ne y Co
., 24 5 F.3 d 10 08
, 10 15 (8t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law i s ap pr op ria te

on ly wh en “ al l of th e ev id en ce po in ts on e way an d is ‘s u s c e p t i bl e of no reas on ab le
in fere nc e su st ai ni ng th e po si ti on of th e no nm ov in g pa rty.’ ” St ul ts v. Am

. Po p Co rn Co ., 8 15 F.3 d 40 9, 41 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Howar d v. Mo

. B o n e & Jo in t Ct r., In c., 61 5 F .3d 99 1, 9 95 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ).

Io wa ha s ad op te d th e fo ur fact or s fo un d i n t h e Res ta te m en t (Thi rd ) of Tort s: Pro du ct Liab il it y

§ 1 0 a s t he ele m en ts of a po st -s al e fai lu re-t o- warn cla im :

(a) One en ga ge d in th e bu si ne ss of se ll in g or ot he rwis e di st rib u t i ng pr od uc ts is su bjec t to li ab il it y fo r ha rm to pe rs on s or pr op ert y cau se d by
t h e se ll er’s fai lu re to pr ov id e a warn in g aft er th e ti m e of sa le o r di st rib ut io n o f a p ro du ct if a reas on ab le pe rs on in th e se ll er’s po si ti on

wou ld pro vi de su ch a warn in g.
(b ) A reas on ab le pe rs on in th e se ll er’s po si ti on wou ld pr ov id e a warn in g aft er t he ti m e o f sa le if:

(1 ) th e se ll er kn ows or r eas on ab ly sho ul d k no w th at th e pr od uc t po se s a s ub st an ti al ris k o f ha rm to pe rs on s o r pr op ert y ; an d

(2 ) th os e to who m a warn in g m ig ht be pr ov id ed can be id en ti fie d

an d can reas on ab ly be as su m ed to be un aware of th e ris k of ha rm ;

an d

-1 3-(3 ) a warn in g can be effe ct iv el y co m m un ic at ed to an d act ed on by th os e to who m

a warn in g m ig ht be pro vi de d; an d

(4 ) th e ris k of ha rm is su ffi ci en tl y gr eat to jus ti fy th e bu rd en of
pr ov id in g a warn in g.

Lov ic k v. W il -Ri ch
, 58 8 N.W .2d 68 8, 69 4 (Io wa 19 99 ) (q uo ti ng Res ta te m en t (Thi rd )
of Tort s: Pro d u c t s Li a b i li ty § 10 (Am

. Law In st

. 19 97 )). “ Nor m al ly,

. . . th e jury
de te rm in es whe th er a war ni ng of p ro du ct da ng er s ho ul d h av e b een gi ve n,” bu t “ th e
pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of a cas e m ay pe rm it a tri al co ur t to ut il iz e th e [Res ta te m en t]
fact or s to de te rm in e as a m at te r of la w no du ty ex is te d.” Id

. at 69 6 (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

.

W e ag r ee wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Mrs

. W ur st er pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce t o s ho w TPG had a po st -s al e du ty t o war n c on su m ers of t he da ng er p os ed by i ts W 52 0 ga s can s. It is cl ear fro m th e reco rd TP G l ack ed th e ab il it y to id en ti fy
th e Wurst ers —o r an y ot he r in di vi du al s— as us ers of t he ga s ca n. Whil e TPG kn ew whi ch bi g b ox st or e co m

pa ni es it so ld ga s ca ns to , it ha d n o way of kno win g whi ch
i nd iv id ua l st or es —i n Io wa or el se whe re— were ret ai li ng th e W 52 0 ga s can , as in di vi du al st or es were g iv en th e ab il it y to ch oo se whet he r to carr y TPG’ s p ro du ct s. W it ho ut a di rect rel at io ns hi p wit h us ers of it s ga s can s, TP G h a d n o w a y of
de te rm in in g wh o p ur ch as ed th e can s an d wh o s ho ul d h av e b een warn ed

.

“ Rec or ds [th at ] in di cat e cl as se s of pr od uc t us ers , or ge o g r ap hi cal ly li m it ed

m ark et s” m ay be su ffi ci en t whe re reco rd s of “ [i]nd iv id ua l na m es an d ad dr es se s” do

no t ex is t. Res ta te m en t (Thi rd ) of Tort s: Pro du ct s Liab il it y § 10 cm t. e. “ Bu t whe n

no su ch reco rd s are av ai la bl e, th e se ll er’s in ab il it y to id en ti fy t ho se fo r who m

warn in gs wou ld be us efu l m ay pr op erl y pr ev en t a po st -s al e d u t y t o warn fro m ari si ng .” Id

. Bas ed on t h e e v i de nc e pr es en te d at tri al
, Mr. W ur st er was si m pl y a

“ m em be r of a un iv ers e to o di ffu s e a n d t o o la rg e fo r m an uf act ur ers or se ll ers [li ke TPG]

. . . to id en ti fy ” or warn

. Ro bi ns on v. S.D. Bran dt jen & Klu ge , In c., 50 0 F.3 d

-1 4-69 1, 69 8 (8t h Cir. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Lewis v. Arie ns Co
., 75 1 N.E.2d 86 2, 86 7 (Ma ss

.

20 01 )). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by gr an ti ng jud gm en t as a m at t e r o f l a w fo r TPG.

II I. Con cl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-