## Facts

- Leo Lovick, an experienced farmer, used a used Wil-Rich vertical-fold field cultivator owned by Paul Rotgers.
- On May 20, 1993, Lovick transported the cultivator with its wings upright, held by hydraulic cylinders and manual metal pins intended to secure the wings if hydraulics failed.
- At the field, Lovick stood under the left wing to remove a pin; when the pin was removed, the wing fell and severely injured him.
- Investigation showed the linkage attaching the hydraulic cylinder to the wing had broken, leaving the pin as the only restraint at the time of removal.
- The model was introduced in 1971; the unit involved was manufactured and sold in 1981 and later purchased used by Rotgers in the late 1980s.
- Beginning around 1983, the manufacturer received reports of similar wing-fall accidents causing injury.
- In 1988, the manufacturer placed additional warnings on newly manufactured cultivators instructing users not to go under the wings; the 1981 unit did not contain those warnings at sale.
- In 1994, the manufacturer began a notification campaign and offered a safety latch kit intended to prevent wing falls if hydraulics failed.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa recognizes a negligence-based post-sale duty to warn and, if so, what factors govern that duty.
2. Whether the jury instruction on post-sale duty to warn was legally sufficient or constituted prejudicial error.
3. Whether evidence of a competitor’s retrofit safety program and evidence of other similar accidents were admissible, and for what limited purposes.
4. Whether a design-defect claim may be submitted under strict liability rather than only negligence.
5. Whether the evidence supported submitting punitive damages to the jury.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.
- Held the post-sale duty to warn is recognized in appropriate cases and adopted Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 10 as the governing framework.
- Reversed because the post-sale duty to warn instruction was incomplete and failed to guide the jury on the § 10 factors, constituting prejudicial error.
- Indicated evidence of other accidents and a competitor’s safety program could be relevant to notice and feasibility, but required careful limitation to avoid implying a legal duty to retrofit.
- Confirmed Iowa permits design-defect claims under strict liability and allowed punitive damages to be submitted on the record, subject to proper instructions on the governing duty standards on retrial.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer’s post-sale duty to warn is distinct from warnings required at the time of sale and depends on post-sale considerations.
- Under Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 10, a post-sale duty to warn turns on whether:
  - the seller knows or reasonably should know the product poses a substantial risk of harm;
  - those who should receive the warning can be identified and are likely unaware of the risk;
  - a warning can be effectively and feasibly communicated; and
  - the risk justifies the burden of providing the warning.
- Jury instructions on post-sale failure to warn must include the factors that define reasonableness in the post-sale context; a general “continuing duty” instruction is insufficient.
- Evidence of other similar incidents and safety measures by others may be admissible to show notice and feasibility, but should be accompanied by limiting instructions to prevent misuse as proof of a duty to retrofit.

## Conclusion

The court required a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed on the factors governing a post-sale duty to warn, adopted Restatement (Third) § 10 to define that duty in Iowa, and directed tighter limits on evidence offered to prove notice and feasibility rather than an implied duty to retrofit.


Lovick v. Wil-Rich, 588 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1999)