Source: https://www.products50.com/copy-of-indiana
Timestamp: 2020-05-27 04:53:59
Document Index: 517216005

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 614', '§ 614', '§ 614', '§ 614', '§ 614', '§ 614', '§ 2', '§ 613', '§ 668', '§ 668', '§ 668', '§ 668', '§ 2', '§ 668', '§ 2', '§ 668', '§ 668']

IOWA | products-50
Statutes of Limitations (IOWA)
Personal Injury - 2 yrs. (even if Contracts) [I.C.A. § 614.1]
Wrongful Death - 2 yrs. (even if Contracts) [I.C.A. § 614.1]
Property Damage - 5 yrs. [I.C.A. § 614.1]
Written Contracts - 10 yrs. [I.C.A. § 614.1]
Oral Contracts - 5 yrs. [I.C.A. § 614.1]
Breach of Implied Warranty - 5 yrs. [Speight v. Walters Development Co., Ltd., 744 N.W.2d 108 (Iowa 2008); Richards v. Midland Brick Sales Co., Inc., 551 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa. App. 1996)]
Breach of Express Warranty - Same as Written Contract
Under “discovery rule,” statute of limitations does not begin to run until injured party has actual or imputed knowledge of facts supporting all elements of action; once injured party has such knowledge, statute begins to run, even where party has no actual or imputed knowledge that facts are legally actionable [Franzen v. Deere and Co., 377 N.W.2d 660 (Iowa 1985)].
Statute of Repose (Products) (IOWA)
15 yrs. [I.C.A. § 614.1].
Admissibility of Expert Testimony (IOWA)
When the scientific evidence is particularly novel or complex, courts consider the relevant factors identified in Daubert, which are (1) whether the theory or technique is scientific knowledge that can and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; or (4) whether it is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community [Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 2010)].
Causes of Action (IOWA)
Products liability law encompasses 3 theories of liability: negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty [Lovick v. Wil-Rich, 588 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1999)]
Strict Liability – Iowa has abandoned Rest. (2nd) of Torts, 402A and adopted Rest. (3rd) of Torts: Product Liability, Sections 1 and 2 instead. One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect. NOTE: the concept of “unreasonably dangerous” is not present [Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002)].
Negligence – Strict liability is appropriate in manufacturing defect cases, but negligence principles are more suitable for other defective product cases [Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002)].
Breach of Warranty – Illinois has Theories of liability based on strict liability and breach of warranty does not have to be mutually exclusive. When a suit involves personal injury, strict tort liability overrides recovery on a warranty theory. When the loss is purely property, the use of strict tort is not ruled out. But when the loss is economic, then the right of recovery must be governed by the warranty approach. [Hawkeye Sec. Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 199 N.W.2d 373 (Iowa 1972)].
Definition of “Defect” (IOWA)
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 warnings.
A product is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.
[Restat. 3d of Torts: Products Liability, § 2]
The consumer expectations test for strict liability operates effectively when the product defect is a construction or manufacturing defect. On the other hand, cases involving design defects and defects rest on a risk-utility assessment [Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002)].
Liability of Sellers (IOWA)
A person who is not the assembler, designer, or manufacturer, and who wholesales, retails, distributes, or otherwise sells a product is: (1) immune from any suit based upon strict liability in tort or breach of implied warranty of merchantability which arises solely from an alleged defect in the original design or manufacture of the product; (2) not liable for damages based upon strict liability in tort or breach of implied warranty of merchantability for the product upon proof that the manufacturer is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state and has not been judicially declared insolvent [Iowa Code § 613.18].
Defenses (IOWA)
Comparative Negligence – Iowa follows modified comparative negligence (Plaintiff cannot recover if he is 51% at fault) [I.C.A. § 668.3]. Defense to negligence and strict liability [I.C.A § 668.1].
Assumption of Risk – Unreasonable assumption of risk falls under the comparative negligence analysis [I.C.A. § 668.1].
Product Misuse – Falls under the comparative negligence analysis [I.C.A. § 668.1].
Product Alteration/Modification – If a product had been altered, Defendant can still be held liable if Plaintiff can show it is foreseeable that the alteration would be made and the change does not unforeseeably render the product unsafe [Hardy v. Britt-Tech Corp., 378 N.W.2d 307 (Iowa App. 1985)].
Economic Loss Doctrine (ELD) (Product Destroys Only Itself) (IOWA)
Tort recovery for purely economic losses is prohibited, and such claims are consigned to contract law; factors to be considered in determining whether a products liability claim sounds in tort or contract are: (1) the nature of the defect; (2) the type of risk; and (3) the manner in which the injury arose [American Fire and Cas. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 588 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1999)].
However, with respect to a products liability claim, a tort theory is generally available when the harm results from a sudden or dangerous occurrence, frequently involving some violence or collision with external objects, resulting from a genuine hazard in the nature of the product defect. Fire has been characterized as a sudden and highly dangerous occurrence; a truck starting itself on fire qualifies as a danger and not as an economic disappointment. [American Fire and Cas. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 588 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1999)].
Malfunction Theory (Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Defect) (IOWA)
Proof that a product was sold in a defective, unreasonably dangerous condition can be made by circumstantial evidence [Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Thermogas Co., 620 N.W.2d 819 (Iowa 2000)].
Design Defects (IOWA)
A product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by Defendant, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe [Rest. 3rd of Torts: Products Liability, § 2]. Cases involving design defects rest on a risk-utility assessment [Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002)].
For damages arising from a defect in the design, testing, manufacturing, formulation, packaging, warning, or labeling of a product, a percentage of fault shall not be assigned to manufacturers/sellers if they prove that the product conformed to the state of the art in existence at the time the product was designed, tested, manufactured, formulated, packaged, provided with a warning, or labeled [I.C.A. § 668.12].
Failure to Warn (IOWA)
A product is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe [Restat. 3d of Torts: Products Liability, § 2]
In any action for damages arising from an alleged defect in packaging, warning, or labeling of a product, a product bearing or accompanied by a reasonable and visible warning or instruction that is reasonably safe for use if the warning or instruction is followed is not deemed defective or unreasonably dangerous on the basis of failure to warn or instruct [I.C.A. § 668.12].
For damages arising from an alleged defect in the design, testing, manufacturing, formulation, packaging, warning, or labeling of a product, a percentage of fault shall not be assigned to manufacturers/sellers if they prove that the product conformed to the state of the art in existence at the time the product was designed, tested, manufactured, formulated, packaged, provided with a warning, or labeled [I.C.A. § 668.12].
A duty to warn depends upon superior knowledge, and such a duty exists when one may reasonably foresee a danger of injury or damage to one less knowledgeable unless an adequate warning is given. It is this reasonable foreseeability which triggers the obligation to warn. Whether such a warning should have been given is a question for the jury [Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund, 496 N.W.2d 247 (Iowa 1993)].
Where warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition, nor is it unreasonably dangerous [Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1999)].
Independent Cause of Action for Evidence Spoliation (IOWA)