Opinion ID: 2046018
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standards in the industry.

Text: 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.