Opinion ID: 2112037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of Manufacturer Under Theories Submitted to the Jury.

Text: The issues on appeal that affect the liability of the manufacturer, Avco, include both theories of liability that were submitted to the jury and those that were not. Plaintiff's claims of error on the legal theories that were submitted are: (1) that the court improperly excluded evidence of similar accidents, and (2) that the court should have instructed the jury that a product manufacturer is held to the standard of diligence of an expert in the field. We have considered both of these contentions and conclude that they do not warrant a reversal. The evidence of similar accidents was offered by the plaintiff to show knowledge by Avco of the hazards that its product presented. The trial court did admit evidence of two similar accidents for this purpose. It excluded proffered evidence of several other occurrences on the ground that the foundational showing of sufficient similarity was inadequate. Significantly, Avco conceded knowledge of the hazard in the testimony of its principal witness. We fail to find any abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling or any noticeable prejudice to the plaintiff's case from the exclusion of this evidence. On the issue concerning the ordinary care instruction, the standard instruction was given as framed in Iowa Uniform Civil Jury Instruction 700.2. This instruction is designed to be generic. It refers to the care that a reasonably careful person would use under similar circumstances. (Emphasis added.) It thus describes a flexible duty that adjusts to both the status of the actor and the circumstances that the actor faces. These are matters that may be adequately conveyed to the jury by the evidence and by argument of counsel under the instruction that the court gave.