Iowa Court Affirms Jury Verdict against Landowner in Erosion Dispute

On August 31, 2022, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion for a new trial in an erosion lawsuit. Landowners claimed that their neighbor’s construction caused erosion damage on their farmland. Because there was sufficient evidence that the landowners’ failure to maintain the waterway contributed to the damage, the court affirmed the denial. 

Background

The plaintiffs own farmland with three “waterways” which helped control erosion. These waterways are outlined in yellow below. The defendant owned property to north of the largest waterway.

In 2015, the defendant built a cattle shed on his property. Part of the construction involved connecting an additional catch basin to the main waterway. The plaintiffs alleged that the area began experiencing erosion after the construction and continued to get worse. As a result, in 2017 the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit alleging negligence, trespass, and nuisance. They also requested injunctive relief.

The case proceeded to jury trial. During trial, the defendant testified that the plaintiffs’ failure to maintain the waterways allowed ragweed to grow uncontrollably and caused the erosion. Additionally, one witness testified regarding the extent of the erosion and possible solutions. The jury also heard testimony as to the cost to repair the main waterway. One contractor estimated the cost to be between $6,850 and $18,631.58. Another contractor testified that it would cost roughly $75,000. The third contractor opined that repairs would cost about $2,000-$3,500.

The jury found in favor of the defendant for both the nuisance and trespass claims. The jury found both parties at fault for negligence and assigned 90% of the fault to the plaintiffs and 10% to the defendant. Lastly, the jury found that the plaintiffs suffered $2,000 worth of damages. Because the plaintiffs were responsible for a greater percentage of fault than the defendant, the court found in favor of the defendant. See Iowa Code § 668.3(1)(a).

The plaintiffs petitioned for a new trial which the district court denied. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion and claimed that a new trial was warranted.

Comparative Fault

Generally, Iowa is a comparative fault state meaning that both the plaintiff and defendant are proportionally liable for damages based on their percentage of fault. Iowa Code § 668.3. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence of the plaintiffs’ fault to warrant a comparative fault jury instruction. See Iowa R. Civ. Pro. r. 1.1004(8).

Although the plaintiffs testified to the contrary, the court determined there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the plaintiffs’ failure to maintain the waterways contributed to their damages. A comparative fault instruction is appropriate when there has been a showing of “a causal connection between [plaintiffs’] fault and [their] claimed damages.” Ransdell v. Huckleberry Ent., LLC, 2020 WL 5650728, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2020).

Here, one of the plaintiffs’ farm tenants testified the waterway already had erosion when he began farming the property in 2015. There was also evidence that the plaintiffs did not mow the ragweed in the waterway, which the defendant claimed can make the area more susceptible to erosion. Therefore, the district court did not error by giving a comparative fault instruction to the jury.

Damages Awarded

The plaintiffs also argued that a new trial was warranted because “[t]he damages awarded in the verdict bear no relationship to the evidence.” See Iowa R. Civ. Pro. r. 1.1004(4), (5), (6). The court will not interfere with a jury award of damages so long as it is reasonably within the range of evidence submitted.

The court noted that the plaintiffs’ arguments “really only boil down to a singular claim that a new trial is warranted because the jury did not adopt [the $75,000] estimate for repairing” the waterways. Although the jury award of $2,000 was on the lower end, it still reasonably fell within the range of evidence. The Court of Appeals thus affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.