Opinion ID: 1248354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Does Iowa Law Allow a Plaintiff to Recover From a Cigarette Manufacturer Under a Manufacturing Defect Theory When the Cigarettes Smoked by Plaintiff Were in the Condition Intended by the Manufacturer?

Text: Under the principles set forth in the Products Restatement adopted today, [a] product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect.... Products Restatement § 2. A product contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product. Id. § 2(a) (emphasis added). Clearly, then, under Iowa law, a plaintiff may not recover from a cigarette manufacturer under a manufacturing defect theory when the cigarettes smoked by the plaintiff were in the condition intended by the manufacturer. Although the answer to the certified question is clear under the law set out in the Products Restatement, many courts have reached the same conclusion in applying the principles of Restatement (Second) of Torts. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Ho Sports Inc., 232 F.3d 754, 757 (10th Cir.2000) (A product is defective in manufacture if it `deviates in some material way from its design or performance standards. The issue is whether the product was rendered unsafe by an error in the manufacturing process.' Errors in process are often established by showing that a product, as produced, failed to conform with the manufacturer's specifications. (Citations omitted.)); In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050, 1055 n. 4 (8th Cir.1996) (`A manufacturing defect exists only where an item is substandard when compared to other identical units off of the assembly line.'); Guilbeault v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 84 F.Supp.2d 263, 280 (D.R.I. 2000) (To establish a manufacturing defect, `a plaintiff must show a product defect caused by a mistake or accident in the manufacturing process.' (Citation omitted.)); Stoffel v. Thermogas Co., 998 F.Supp. 1021, 1033 (N.D.Iowa 1997) (`A manufacturing defect ... results when a mistake in manufacturing renders a product that is ordinarily safe dangerous so that it causes harm.' (Citation omitted.)) (applying Iowa law); 2 Dobbs § 362, at 1002 (The plaintiff may show a [manufacturing] defect by direct evidence that points to the defect and identifies it as a departure from the defendant's intended design.).