Opinion ID: 2046018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State of the art defense.

Text: The jury found that the model 83R detector was not state of the art. On appeal, BRK contends that it presented uncontested evidence that the model 83R ionization smoke detector was state of the art and that the district court therefore erred in failing to sustain its post-trial motion on that basis as a complete defense. [6] BRK therefore contends it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law concerning plaintiffs' strict liability claim.
The state of the art defense in product liability cases is codified in Iowa Code section 668.12. It provides that in any action brought against a manufacturer for damages arising from alleged defects in the design of a product, a percentage of fault shall not be assigned to such persons if they plead and 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. Iowa Code § 668.12. Section 668.12 further states that, [n]othing contained in this section shall diminish the duty of an assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer or seller to warn concerning subsequently acquired knowledge of a defect or dangerous condition that would render the product unreasonably dangerous for its foreseeable use or diminish the liability for failure to so warn. In short, the state of the art defense may be a complete defense in product defect cases, but only as to a claim other than a negligent failure to warn. Olson v. Prosoco, 522 N.W.2d 284, 291 (Iowa 1994) (concluding that the state of the art defense is not applicable to claims based on negligent failure to warn). As we explained in Fell: a duty and corresponding liability still exists in a case of a defect that is unreasonably dangerous and that a defendant learns of later. For example, even though a product is state of the art, if a manufacturer later learns of a defect that is unreasonably dangerous, the manufacturer then has a duty to warn. And a failure to do so could render the manufacturer liable. 457 N.W.2d at 920.
BRK contends that it proved the state of the art defense as a matter of law because the model 83R complied with the UL 217 standard, which is the standard used in the industry to test ionization smoke detectors. In Chown, we distinguished between what is considered custom in the industry and what is state of the art. 297 N.W.2d at 221. We said that [c]ustom refers to what was being done in the industry; state of the art refers to what feasibly could have been done. Id. (emphasis added). We said the relevant question is not whether anyone else was doing more, although that may be considered, but whether the evidence disclosed that anything more could reasonably and economically be done. Id. (quoting Hancock v. Paccar, Inc., 204 Neb. 468, 283 N.W.2d 25, 35 (1979)); accord Hughes v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 294, 295-96 (Iowa 1994). We noted in Hughes that evidence of a product design that is practically, as well as technologically sound, or evidence regarding government regulations, is relevant and material on the question of whether a state of the art defense has been sufficiently established to warrant submission to the jury. 522 N.W.2d at 296.
At trial, Mark Devine, BRK vice president of engineering, testified that the model 83R conforms to the UL 217 standard, the current manufacturing and technology standard available in the industry. Plaintiffs' experts, however, testified in detail about the ineffectiveness of the UL 217 standard to test ionization detectors. For instance, Dr. Torero testified that the UL 217 smoke box test was only testing for the type of smoke (small smoke particles) that the ionization detector was capable of detecting (small smoke particles) and did not really test the ionization detector's ability to detect large smoke particles common in slow, smoldering fires. We believe that the evidence presented created a jury question concerning BRK's state of the art defense and it could not be decided as a matter of law. BRK was therefore not entitled to a directed verdict concerning plaintiffs' strict liability claim and the court therefore properly submitted the state of the art instruction to the jury.