Iowa Courts have recently decided two civil cases filed against Iowa towns involving the issue of the towns’ legal responsibility for injuries to individuals at a public building or at a public event, and a third case involving premises liability on private property.
In the first case, an individual suffered severe injuries when she fell down a flight of stairs at the town’s community center. She died in May 2004 and her estate subsequently filed a negligence action against the city alleging negligent design, construction, and maintenance of the center. The trial court found there was insufficient evidence for the jury to decide the issue of liability, and granted the city’s motion for directed verdict.
The estate appealed and the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of a directed verdict with respect to the claims of negligent design and construction. On further review by the Iowa Supreme Court, the Court noted that under Iowa Code §670.4(8), a city is immune from claims of negligent design or construction if the public facility “was constructed or reconstructed in accordance with a generally recognized engineering or safety standard, criteria, or design theory in existence at the time of the construction or reconstruction.” (There is an exception to immunity when the city buys liability insurance, which the city had purchased in this case, but the issue wasn’t raised). The burden of proof is on the party claiming negligent design or construction. The estate offered little or no proof of the city’s alleged failure.
On the issue of negligent maintenance of the center, the Court determined that there was no evidence on record to establish the city did not perform proper maintenance. However, had there been such evidence, this case may have gone to the jury for a determination as to liability. A key point is that to avoid liability for negligent construction, design, or maintenance, a city should take care to properly educate staff and adhere to detailed safety plans. Felderman v. City of Maquoketa, 731 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2007)
The second case involved a concert and street dance held as part of an annual town Labor Day celebration that the plaintiff attended. During the event, another spectator leapt off the stage at the concert, landing on and injuring the plaintiff. The celebration was organized by a group of private citizens and the town’s only direct involvement was to issue liquor permits and allow street closings. However, town police officers patrolled the event and town firefighters took tickets. Some event proceeds were donated to the town.
The plaintiff claimed that the city failed to exercise reasonable care to protect him from injury. The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the town did not have a duty to protect the plaintiff or other concert attendees. The town argued, and the court agreed, that it was granted immunity from liability under Iowa Code section 670.4 (10). In addition, the court held that the town did not owe the plaintiff protection, because it had no business purposes in connection with the celebration and street dance.
On appeal, the court noted that the general rule is that there is no duty to prevent a third person from causing harm to another, unless a special relationship exists, such as between a possessor of land and invitees. In this case, the court held that the mere fact that the town “owned” and “controlled” the streets was not a sufficient reason to impose liability on the city for the plaintiff’s injury. The town had no business purpose in connection with the concert and street dance. A private committee planned the event and the town did not receive profits from the event, except some donations. The town did not assist in actually blocking off the streets. Also, the town did not compensate the police officers and firefighters working the event. Nellis v. Sutherland, No. 7-415/06-2043, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 836 (Iowa Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2007)
The third case involved the issue of a landlord’s liability for injuries to entrants upon the lease of the premises. In general, a landlord is not liable for injuries to those invited on the property if the landlord does not occupy and control the premises. But, there are exceptions. The plaintiff, an elderly woman attending a garage sale, tripped and fell in the driveway during the sale and was seriously injured. At the time, the property was owned by another party, but they weren’t in possession of the property. They sent a letter to the prior owner, allowing her to remain on the property for one month. It was during this time that the plaintiff sustained her injuries. The letter stated that “workers may be at the house to do exterior repairs, but access to the inside was not necessary.” The plaintiff sued both the prior and current owners. The plaintiff dismissed the prior owner from the lawsuit, so the question before the court was whether the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the current owner was proper. The court summary judgment said should not have been granted. The court focused on an agreement that showed an intention to make repairs outside the home. Thus, the court reversed the trial court and remanded the case. An important lesson: the agreement of the parties controls in regards to the duty of care owed to a business invitee, despite possession. Karns v. Lipovac, No. 7-216/06-1543, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 802 (Iowa Ct. App., Jul. 12, 2007).