## Facts

- David Olson, a bricklayer foreman, moved a fifteen-gallon drum of Prosoco’s mortar cleaner (Sure Klean 600) at a job site to keep it from freezing to the ground.
- When Olson dropped the drum onto a pallet, the bung closure came out and hydrochloric-acid-based cleaner splashed into his right eye.
- The cleaner was manufactured and packaged by Prosoco; the drum and bung closure were manufactured by other companies that later settled.
- Olson underwent extensive treatment, ultimately lost sight in his right eye, and was fitted with an artificial eye.
- Olson and his family sued Prosoco on strict liability and negligence theories, including failure to warn and claims tied to the drum/closure system and instructions for handling.
- A jury found Prosoco 100% at fault on both strict liability and negligence and awarded damages exceeding $735,000, including loss-of-consortium damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict; Prosoco appealed alleging instructional, evidentiary, and other errors.

## Issues

1. Whether the case was improperly submitted to the jury on both strict products liability and negligence theories in a products case involving alleged inadequate warnings.
2. Whether the jury instructions properly distinguished strict liability (defective/unreasonably dangerous product) from negligence (unreasonable manufacturer conduct) for failure-to-warn claims.
3. Whether Prosoco was entitled to a “state-of-the-art” instruction, and whether such a theory operates as a defense to strict liability or only informs negligence.
4. Whether alleged instructional and evidentiary errors, including apportionment of fault and damages challenges, required reversal.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Olson.
- The court held it was permissible to submit both negligence and strict liability theories when supported by the evidence and properly differentiated.
- The court found error in one strict-liability failure-to-warn instruction, but ruled the error harmless because the jury’s negligence finding independently supported liability and the judgment.
- The court rejected Prosoco’s claim that refusal to give its requested state-of-the-art instruction warranted reversal.
- The court found no reversible error in other challenged rulings, including the jury’s allocation of fault and the damages awarded.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability turns on whether a product was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when it left the seller’s control; the manufacturer’s degree of care is not the focus.
- Negligence focuses on whether the manufacturer acted reasonably in design, selection of components, packaging, and warnings, given what it knew or should have known.
- Failure-to-warn claims may be pursued under both strict liability (inadequate warnings rendering the product unreasonably dangerous) and negligence (unreasonable failure to warn), if the jury is instructed to apply the distinct standards.
- State-of-the-art evidence bears primarily on negligence (reasonable care in light of then-available knowledge and technology) and is not an automatic bar to strict liability.
- Instructional error does not require reversal if an independent, properly instructed theory supports the verdict and the error did not affect the judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantial verdict against the manufacturer after an acid-cleaner drum’s bung closure dislodged and injured the user, holding that negligence and strict liability could both be submitted, that any defect in a strict-liability warning instruction was harmless because negligence independently supported liability, and that the requested state-of-the-art framing did not justify a new trial.


Olson v. Prosoco, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 1994)