New Trial Ordered in Dog Bite Case

Occasionally, a trial court judge will have cause to grant a new trial based upon objectionable statements made during the trial by attorneys that may unduly influence a jury. In this case, a trial court judge ordered a new trial when an attorney made objectionable statements during closing arguments. In 2004, a neighbor’s golden retriever bit a young girl in the face, resulting in severe damage and several plastic surgeries. The girl’s father sued the dog-owners, claiming that the owners were strictly liable for the injuries caused by the dog.   Iowa Code §351.28 imposes liability on dog owners, regardless of fault, for injuries sustained by a person attacked by a dog. 

During closing arguments at trial, the plaintiff’s attorney objected to statements made by the defendants’ attorney. The defendants’ attorney described the case as the plaintiff “going to the casino and hitting the jackpot” and also referenced the amount of money being asked for by the plaintiff as “life-changing.” 

The trial court agreed that the remarks were improper and instructed the jury to disregard the objectionable statements. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of $37,000- well below the $600,000 the plaintiff asked for. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing that their rights were materially affected by the misconduct of the defendants’ attorney. The court ordered a new trial on that basis. 

The defendants appealed and the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed that a new trial was warranted.  In Iowa, “misconduct in argument may be so flagrantly improper and evidently prejudicial that it may be a ground for a new trial.” Closing statements are merely “an opportunity for counsel to ask the jury to reach a certain verdict based on the evidence presented at trial.” They are not to be used to “appeal to the passions or prejudices of the jurors.” According to the court, by making arguments such as “hitting the jackpot” and referencing the sum of money asked for by the plaintiff as life-changing, the defendants’ attorney clearly attempted to incite the passions and prejudices jurors. The appellate court concluded that without these remarks, a different outcome would have been probable.  That, however, is highly unlikely.  Here’s betting that the “litigation lotto” comes out approximately the same the second time around unless, of course, there is actual evidence to support a $600,000 damage award.  Conn v. Alfstad, No. 1-036/10-1171 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2011).