This appeal had its origin in an accident which inflicted Add A Company To Crunchbase personal injuries to plaintiff when several sticks of dynamite he was holding exploded. Claiming a defect in the fuse used to ignite the dynamite, plaintiff seeks recovery from Quick Supply Company, wholesale distributor which supplied the Quick Supply Company to the retailer from whom plaintiff ultimately bought it.

A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, which we affirm. Plaintiff Quick Supply Company a right of recovery based, first, on the doctrine of strict liability and, in Yamaha Motor Company Ltd separate count, he asked damages because defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate warning concerning the dangers attendant upon the use of the product.

Other facts will be related as they bear upon the particular issues involved. Plaintiff and several friends, Steve Roberts and James Kilkenny, none of whom had any previous experience with dynamite, decided to use that explosive to kill undesirable fish which had been multiplying in a pond located on a farm plaintiff was working.

Plaintiff purchased five sticks of dynamite, some dynamite caps, and approximately 10 or Boston Scally Company Store feet of safety fuse, also referred to in the record as dynamite fuse, at Mateer Implement Company on the day of the accident. Late in the afternoon the three went to the pond to try their experiment.

They did this in the following manner. First they attached a dynamite stick to a board so it would not sink. After the fuse was lit, the stick and attached board were tossed into the pond at the desired location. The resulting explosion was supposed to kill the unwanted fish. On the third try the men decided to double the charge.

Plaintiff held the dynamite while one of the others lit the fuse. It exploded in his hand, causing severe, painful, and permanent injuries. We need not describe the extent of plaintiff's damages since the amount of the judgment is not an issue on this appeal.

In the strict liability count the only product defect submitted was the allegation that the fuse "did not appear to be ignited when in fact it was ignited"; and the sole negligence relied on in the ordinary tort count was defendant's failure to warn as to the safe and proper use of that product. No attack is made on either of the other two componentsthe dynamite itself or the dynamite capsand our consideration is accordingly limited to the condition and use of the fuse.

Defendant's appeal presents five issues for review. We state them as defendant did although not in the same order. They are: 1 plaintiff should be barred from recovery because he voluntarily engaged in an extra hazardous activity which caused his injuries; 2 plaintiff's theory of liability is contrary to the laws of nature, is unsupported by expert testimony, and controverted by expert testimony; 3 the trial court improperly instructed the jury in a manner which permitted it to find defendant liable on both strict liability and ordinary negligence and to designate each as the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries; 4 defendant wholesaler is not bound to Quick Supply Company an unreasonable standard of care which would require it to give suitable warnings to each retail purchaser concerning the propensities and dangers of safety fuses; and 5 plaintiff failed to show the fuse was in a defective condition at the time it left the hands of defendant wholesaler.

First we treat the argument plaintiff's claim is barred by "his conduct as an adult person of normal intelligence in engaging in an extra hazardous activity. Although this issue is not framed in the usual language of those two affirmative defenses, both of them were pled and were submitted to the jury.

We accordingly assume defendant is relying on them here. The jury was instructed on assumption of risk in the strict liability claim and on contributory negligence in the other count.

This was proper under Rosenau v. City of Estherville, N. See also 63 Am. Defendant's argument rather is that these questions should have been decided against plaintiff as matters Godey Prints By Salem China Company law.

We have said repeatedly questions of contributory negligence and assumption of risk are ordinarily for determination by the jury and should be decided as matters of law only in exceptional cases. Rule f10Rules of Civil Procedure; Bessman v. Harding, N. This is not one of those exceptional cases. The detonation of dynamite sticks by means of dynamite caps and fuse is an accepted method of using this explosive for a multiplicity of purposes in industry, farming and other pursuits.

Plaintiff's explanation for the alleged premature explosion is that the fuse was defective and did not give the customary indications of ignition, as had been the case with the two previous explosions, when plaintiff was warned the fuse was lit by the emission of smoke and a sputtering noise. There was substantial testimony from which the jury could find plaintiff attached a 2-foot length of fuse to the final charge; that the retail salesman had told himincorrectlythat it burned at the rate of one foot per minute; and that the fuse gave off no smoke, no odor, no noise before exploding.

This is equally true of the assumption of risk issue. The elements of Quick Supply Company of risk were discussed recently in King v. Barrett, N. We need not repeat them here. We hold plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury as a matter of law under this record.

We next dispose of the defendant's claim plaintiff should have been denied recovery because his legal theory was "contrary to Vahan Company laws of nature, unsupported by expert testimony, and controverted by expert testimony.

See Howie v. Camden, Iowa, 20 N. Hansen, Iowa 37, 41, 42, N. We consider this matter, of course, in the context in which the case reaches us.

As already stated, the products liability count was submitted to the jury on the sole basis the Colony Insurance Company Am Best Rating fuse was defective because, when ignited, it did not give any of the usual appearances or warnings of being ignited.

We should distinguish between original ignition and later burning, although the difference may at first appear to be without substance. Web Design Company Sydney is the former upon which plaintiff relies; but it is the latter which defendant seems to argue so vigorously here. As we will demonstrate later, there is ample evidence to support plaintiff's claim the fuse ignited without any signs of ignition.

Perhaps although we do not so hold defendant's argument about the physical facts rule has merit as far as the ultimate burning of the fuse is concerned. However, a finding that plaintiff's evidence dealing with the burning of the fuse was "contrary to the established physical facts" or was "inherently incredible," as we say in the cases cited, would not save defendant from its present dilemma.

Two experts testified. One, Ralph S. Hale, stated he was familiar with safety fuse, knew its composition, the method of its manufacture, and how it reacted when ignited.

He testified it emitted smoke, caused an odor, and occasioned a sputtering or, as the witness described it, a "spit. Incidentally, plaintiff and several other witnesses testified unequivocally the explosion which caused plaintiff's injury occurred without these telltale warnings being present.

David Balboni also testified as an expert for defendant. He, too, was thoroughly familiar with dynamite and with the type of fuse used here. He corroborated generally the facts previously given by Mr.

On the question of ignition of the fuse, however, we believe Mr. Balboni's testimony was extremely helpful to plaintiff. He said the ignition of the fuse might be "masked" if ignited under certain conditions.

He testified the use of a cigarette lighterthe method used herecould produce that Quick Supply Company. It is clear there is an important line to be drawn between the circumstances existing when the fuse ignited and those present during the subsequent burning of the fuse after ignition. As already pointed out, plaintiff alleges only a defect at the time of ignition, and on this point Mr. Balboni's testimony is vital. This evidence, when considered with the testimony of plaintiff and several other witnesses that nothing alerted them to the fact the fuse had ignited, fully supports plaintiff's allegations regarding the defective fuse.

It also permits a finding this would reduce the time within which plaintiff could have taken precautionary measures for his own safety before the explosion took place. The jury was justified, therefore, in holding defendant liable for this defect even if the burning itself as distinguished from ignition was faultless.

There is still another reason the "physical facts" argument must fail. The record discloses no basis for its application. The testimony upon which defendant seeks to rely did not purport to set out any immutable laws of nature which would make that rule available here.

Each expert witness merely stated his own view as to the characteristics of the safety fuse, and the jury was entitled to consider this testimony as it was giventhe opinion of the expert witness who expressed it.

5fdp Bad Company Live mention in passing that our conclusion is buttressed by the fact the defendant in its brief attempts to present a considerable mass of factual information which was not introduced at the trial.

This includes numerous references to scientific journals, a detailed description of the chemical components of black powder and an equation designed to show what happens when black powder such as that used in this fuse burns. The fact it was not suggests defendant did not then rely on the theory Quick Supply Company now espouses.

In any event, we cannot consider such matter when it is raised for the first time on appeal. The record shows this safety fuse has a number of built-in factors which protect the user.

These include a slow burning rate one foot in 40 seconds and the indicia that burning has begunsmell, smoke, and sputtering. If the onset of burning cannot be recognized because ignition is "masked," the warning time is reduced and the user, particularly the inexperienced one, is imperiled.

Is defendant liable for placing such a product in the hands of the general public without suitable warning or instruction as to its safe use? We believe these were questions for jury determination under proper instructions as to assumption of risk.

The case of Canifax v. Hercules Powder Co. Similar language appears in Hall v. Ford Motor Co. See also 56 Iowa L. Defendant next asserts reversible error occurred because the jury was instructed it must find in the strict liability count the defective fuse was the proximate cause of the accident and was also told in the ordinary tort count the negligence of defendant must be the proximate cause of the Dave Grundfest Company. Defendant says both cannot be the proximate cause.

The trial court, it says, should have charged the jury that each could be a proximate cause but not the proximate cause. Perhaps this oversimplifies defendant's objection. It also claims the two bases for recovery are inconsistent with each other, arguing the jury could not find each was the proximate cause of the accident without contradicting itself.

Defendant relies upon the case of Stanbery v. Two interrogatories were submitted and the jury answered both affirmativelyone said defendant's negligence was the proximate cause; the other that his recklessness was the proximate cause. Under those facts, the answers were in conflict. One answer relieved defendant of liability; the other fixed his responsibility.

But there is no such conflict here. Defendant could be liable both under the doctrine of strict liability and also by reason of its negligence.

Homepage ASP Enterprises

ASP Enterprises. At ASP Enterprises, our mission is to be your local expert on solutions that improve our communities while providing the highest level of customer service. From design specification to installation, our goal is to make your project a success by providing trusted products from ……

Quick Supply Company 401k Rating by BrightScope

Quick Supply Company Employees' 401k Plan is a defined contribution plan with a profit-sharing component and 401k feature. This plan has a BrightScope Rating of 79, placing it in the top 15% of all plans in its peer group. This plan is also in the top 15% of plans for Account Balances, Company Generosity, and Salary Deferral.79%…

Quick Supply Co (Iowa Transport Company)

Quick Supply Co is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Des Moines, Iowa. Quick Supply Co USDOT number is 198051. Quick Supply Co is trucking company providing freight transportation services and hauling cargo.Location: 6620 Nw Toni Dr, Des Moines, 50313-5453, IA…