In this case, a substitute postal carrier slipped and fell on the defendants’ property when he was attempting to deliver their mail. Apparently, the postal carrier slipped on the defendants’ steps which were covered with leaves. The postal carrier filed suit in 2007, alleging that the defendants were negligent in maintaining their property. Thus, he claimed they were exposing “invitees,” like himself, to “slip and trip hazards.” The defendants testified that there were several other routes the postal carrier could have taken and that they had attempted to remove leaves in a timely manner from their property. At trial, the jury found that the home owners were at fault, but their actions were not the “proximate cause” of the postal carrier’s injuries. Proximate cause is an important element in any negligence suit. The trial court subsequently denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s analysis. They found that the issue of proximate cause is a fact-based determination and that it was appropriate for the jury to determine this issue. Further, there was not sufficient evidence for the trial court judge to order a new trial in this case. In other words, reasonable jurors could conclude that the defendants were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries- even though they may have had some fault in the situation. Here, there was an “alternative safe route” by which the plaintiff could have safely proceeded, even if it required some backtracking. Gudenkauf v. Carlyle, No. 0-283/09-1254 (Iowa Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010).