Opinion ID: 2227985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Court's Instruction on Fault.

Text: Goodyear argues Jury Instruction No. 15 unfairly portrayed the fault issues as relating only to Goodyear and not to Leaf. The instruction stated: In these instructions I will be using the term fault. Fault means one or more acts or omissions towards the person or property of the actor or of another which constitutes negligence, or which subjects a person to strict liability in tort. Pertaining to the claims in this case, the concept of strict liability deals with the condition of the tire in question. Negligence on the other hand focuses on the reasonableness of [] Goodyear's conduct as it pertains to warning or failing to warn about claimed dangers posed by the tire. The term fault also includes the unreasonable assumption of risk and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury. These concepts focus on the conduct of the Plaintiff, Mr. Leaf. Each of these terms will be discussed further below. (Emphasis added.) Jury instructions are to be read and considered as a whole, not piecemeal or in artificial isolation. State v. Simpson, 528 N.W.2d 627, 632 (Iowa 1995) (citing Sanders v. Ghrist, 421 N.W.2d 520, 522 (Iowa 1988)). Instructions 17 to 24 informed the jury of the elements of Leaf's strict-liability claim and defined an unreasonably dangerous product. They specifically stated that Leaf had the burden to prove these elements. These instructions also include elements of Goodyear's state-of-the-art defense. Instructions 30-34 provide the comparative fault principles and describe how Leaf's share of the fault could reduce or eliminate his recovery. These instructions also listed the elements Goodyear must prove to establish its defense that Leaf was at fault or assumed the risk. When all of the instructions are read together, they adequately and accurately explain fault as it related to both Leaf and Goodyear.