Olson v. Prosoco, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the state of the art defense is not applicable to claims based on negligent failure to warn
• failure to warn may be submitted in negligence claim but not in both negligence and strict-liability claim
• “[E]ven instructions correctly stating the law should not give undue emphasis to any particular theory, defense, stipulation, burden of proof, or piece of evidence.”
• “After reviewing the authors and comments on the failure to warn question, we believe any posited distinction between strict liability and negligence principles [in warnings cases] is illusory.”
• where claims depend upon proof of the same elements, they are duplicative, and only one may be submitted to the jury
• “[T]he statute is applicable only in situations where ‘damages aris[e] from ... alleged defects in products.’” (Quoting Iowa Code § 668.12.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).