confusing. Rivera, 865 N.W.2d at 902. When an instruction fails to convey a central principle of liability, this warrants a new trial. See Benn v. Thomas, 512 N.W.2d 537, 539-40 (Iowa 1994) (remanding for new trial when jury instruction on proximate cause “failed to adequately convey the existing law”); Law v. Hemmingsen, 249 Iowa 820, 825-26, 89 N.W.2d 386, 390-91 (1958) (determining refusal to instruct on well-settled principle of negligence “at the very heart of the case” was error). The instruction omitted a central element of the plaintiffs claim—to show the failure of the employer to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Omission of this element was a material misstatement of the law and entitles HES to a new trial. See State v. Pearson, 804 N.W.2d 260, 265 n.1 (Iowa 2011) (<HOLDING>); Law, 249 Iowa at 825-26, 89 N.W.2d at 390-91
holding omission in the jury instruction of element of offense requires a new trial holding that knowledge element could not be deemed in favor of plaintiff where defendant objected to the omission of that element from the jury charge holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review