1. In any action brought pursuant to this chapter against an assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer, or seller for damages arising from an alleged defect in the design, testing, manufacturing, formulation, packaging, warning, or labeling of a product, a percentage of fault shall not be assigned to such persons if they plead and prove that the product conformed to the state of the art in existence at the time the product was designed, tested, manufactured, formulated, packaged, provided with a warning, or labeled.
2. Nothing contained in subsection 1 shall diminish the duty of an assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer, or seller to warn concerning subsequently acquired knowledge of a defect or dangerous condition that would render the product unreasonably dangerous for its foreseeable use or diminish the liability for failure to so warn.
3. An assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer, or seller shall not be subject to liability for failure to warn regarding risks and risk-avoidance measures that should be obvious to, or generally known by, foreseeable product users. When reasonable\n\nTue Dec 09 21:57:38 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 668 (24, 0) 5 LIABILITY IN TORT — COMPARATIVE FAULT, §668.13\n\nminds may differ as to whether the risk or risk-avoidance measure was obvious or generally known, the issues shall be decided by the trier of fact.
4. In any action brought pursuant to this chapter against an assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer, or seller for damages arising from an alleged defect in packaging, warning, or labeling of a product, a product bearing or accompanied by a reasonable and visible warning or instruction that is reasonably safe for use if the warning or instruction is followed shall not be deemed defective or unreasonably dangerous on the basis of failure to warn or instruct. When reasonable minds may differ as to whether the warning or instruction is reasonable and visible, the issues shall be decided by the trier of fact. 86 Acts, ch 1211, §41; 2004 Acts, ch 1050, §1 Referred to in §683.1 \n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case:
Olson v. Prosoco, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 1994).
Olson v. Prosoco, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 1994).
· cites it 16× “” Iowa Code § 668.12 . Section 668.1 defines fault, for the purposes of applying chapter 668, as “one or more acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to strict tort liability.”
Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equip. Co., 457 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1990).
· cites it 12× “Following the close of the evidence the district court instructed the jury as to Kewanee's state of the art defense as codified in Iowa Code section 668.12 (1987). In the special verdict forms, the court listed James Fell as a party against whom to apportion fault.”
Theresa Huck v. Wyeth, Inc. D/B/A Wyeth Schwarz Pharma, Inc. & Pliva, Inc., 850 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 7× “, Iowa Code § 668.12 (1987) (“Nothing [contained in subsection providing state- of-the-art defense] shall diminish the duty of an assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer, or seller to warn concerning subsequently acquired knowledge of a defect…”
Mercer v. Pittway Corp., 616 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 6× “” Iowa Code § 668.12 . Section 668.12 further states that, [njothing contained in this section shall diminish the duty of an assembler, designer, supplier of specifications, distributor, manufacturer or seller to warn concerning subsequently acquired knowledge of a defect or…”
Hillrichs v. Avco Corp., 478 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 6× “Avco pleaded the defenses of comparative fault and state of the art under Iowa Code section 668.12 (1989). Siouxland claimed the immunity of a wholesaler, retailer, distributor, or seller of a product under Iowa Code section 613.”
Lovick v. Wil-Rich, 588 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1999).
· cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 668.12 (1987). Although no statutory or judicial post-sale duty to warn had been recognized in Iowa prior to the statute, section 668.”
Huber v. Watson, 568 N.W.2d 787 (Iowa 1997).
· cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 668.12 . Under this language the state-of-the-art defense does not apply to a plaintiffs claim that the defendant breached a duty to warn based on subsequently acquired knowledge about its product.”
Burke v. Deere & Co., 780 F. Supp. 1225 (S.D. Iowa 1991).
· cites it 4× “In response, the plaintiff argues that Iowa Code § 668.12 recognizes a continuing duty to warn in Iowa.”
Kuiper v. Givaudan, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Iowa 2009).
· cites it 2× “The Kuipers also argue that this evidence is relevant to Givaudan’s post sale duty to warn under Iowa Code § 668.12 (2). In 1985, the NIOSH conducted a field investigation at the International Bakers Plant in South Bend, Indiana, after two workers in that plant’s mixing room…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.