Opinion ID: 1834396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Simplistic claims and state of the art.

Text: Hughes' second argument on appeal is less conventional. He claims that all of the devices described aboveshields, handles, guardrails, danger signalsare so simple and straightforward that some date back to the cavemen. That being so, he asserts they cannot possibly be regarded state of the art. He thus claims error in the court's refusal to withdraw the issue from the jury. Although superficially appealing, Hughes' argument is unpersuasive. Devising a simple railing, for example, might not have been a technological breakthrough in 1973, but attaching it safely to a large and powerful combine clearly calls for engineering expertise. According to Massey-Ferguson's experts, the homemade railing installed by Hughes' father was neither safe nor reliable by industry standards because of its inability to withstand the machine's vibrations during operation. The same considerations would apply to all of the devices proposed by Hughes and rejected by Massey-Ferguson, including the adequacy of warning signals. See Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equip. Co., 457 N.W.2d 911, 921 (Iowa 1990) (applying state of the art defense to claim of failure to warn). In conclusion, we believe the court properly submitted the state of the art issue to the jury for its careful consideration. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict. AFFIRMED. All justices concur except TERNUS, HARRIS and LAVORATO, JJ., who concur specially.