## Facts

- Charles Harned, a mechanic, was filling a portable compressed-air tank when it exploded, severing his left arm at the elbow.
- The tank was sold under the “Electro‑Magic” brand and was manufactured by a predecessor whose liabilities Dura Corporation assumed; Dura accepted responsibility for the product for trial purposes.
- Harned alleged a design defect: the tank lacked a bottom drain valve, allowing water accumulation, internal corrosion, and eventual rupture.
- Dura conceded the tank did not comply with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code standards for unfired pressure vessels.
- Alaska law authorized adoption of the ASME boiler and pressure-vessel code (AS 18.60.180), and regulations adopted the ASME Code to govern construction, installation, and repair of unfired pressure vessels (8 AAC 80.010(a)).
- At trial, Harned requested a negligence-per-se instruction based on the ASME Code as incorporated into Alaska law; the court instead instructed that a code violation was only evidence of negligence, and the jury found for Dura.
- In opening statement, defense counsel referred to outcomes of other litigation involving similar tanks; Harned claimed the remarks were prejudicial.

## Issues

1. Whether Alaska’s statutory and regulatory adoption of the ASME Code applied to the manufacture/construction of the tank so that a violation could support a negligence-per-se instruction.
2. Whether Harned fell within the class of persons the adopted safety standards were designed to protect from the type of harm suffered.
3. Whether defense counsel’s references to verdicts in other similar cases were improper and prejudicial, and if so whether they warranted a new trial.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Dura and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held Alaska law incorporated the ASME design and construction standards for unfired pressure vessels and that those standards could supply the statutory standard of care for negligence per se.
- The trial court erred by instructing only that a code violation was evidence of negligence rather than allowing negligence per se where the elements were met; the error was not harmless given Dura’s admitted noncompliance.
- The court held it was improper and prejudicial for defense counsel to refer to verdicts or outcomes in other similar cases; plaintiff’s references to other accidents did not justify discussing other case dispositions under curative admissibility.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute or regulation incorporates technical safety standards by reference, those standards may establish a statutory standard of care for negligence per se under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286, if the plaintiff and the harm are within the protective purpose of the enactment.
- A defendant’s violation of an incorporated safety code should not be limited to “evidence of negligence” where negligence-per-se criteria are satisfied; the jury must be properly instructed on the governing standard of care.
- Evidence of other accidents may be relevant if sufficiently similar and not unduly prejudicial, but prior verdicts or litigation outcomes in other cases are generally irrelevant and improper for jury argument.
- Curative admissibility does not permit a party to introduce prejudicial references to other case outcomes merely because the opposing party referenced other incidents.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because Alaska’s incorporation of the ASME Code required a proper negligence-per-se instruction for pressure-vessel construction defects, and because defense counsel’s references to verdicts in other similar cases improperly risked influencing the jury.


Harned v. Dura Corp., 665 P.2d 5 (Alaska 1983)