In cases of civil liability, Iowa follows the rule of comparative fault- the fault of the party alleging the wrong may be applied to the measure of damages awarded. Here, an Iowa dairy farmer sued an electric utility for nuisance arising out of health problems, low milk production and a high death rate in his dairy herd from 1999 to 2003. The farmer alleged that the herd’s health problems and the farm’s eventual bankruptcy were associated with stray voltage from the electric utility’s installations. Before trial, the utility asked the Iowa Supreme Court whether Iowa’s comparative fault statute (§657.1(2)) was a potential defense available in a nuisance action involving an electric utility. The farmer argued that there is an express limitation of the comparative fault defense for “abatement of nuisances” and allowing the utility to use the defense would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property under the Iowa Constitution.
The appellate court began its analysis of the issue by examining a prior case involving another dairy farm affected by stray voltage. In that case, the Iowa Supreme Court found that whether a nuisance has been created is purely a factual question and does not rest on the fault of either party. According to the court, “the true distinction between negligence and nuisance is that ‘to constitute a nuisance there must be a degree of danger (likely to result in damage) inherent in the thing itself, beyond that arising from mere failure to exercise ordinary care.” At that time, Iowa had no statute exempting electric utilities from nuisance claims. Thus, in the prior case, they declined to exempt the electric utility from the nuisance suit.
Two years later, the Iowa legislature adopted Iowa Code §657.1(2) which states that in a nuisance action against an electric utility, the utility may assert a defense of comparative fault if the utility demonstrates that they provided the electricity in a way that complied with certain engineering and safety standards.
The main argument in this case was whether Iowa Code §657.1(2) applies only to an award of future damages or whether it applies, as the utility argues to reduce or diminish all injunctive relief. The Iowa Supreme Court concluded, in this case, that the statute was ambiguous on this issue but the legislature intended to allow an electric utility to assert a comparative fault defense in any civil action seeking damages for the utility’s creation or maintenance of a nuisance- with certain limitations. The appellate court concluded that this interpretation of the statute may result in an unconstitutional taking of farm property under the Iowa Constitution if applied improperly. According to the court, §657.1(2) does not apply to reduce or eliminate a plaintiff’s recover for the diminution of the value of the property caused by a nuisance. Thus, if a nuisance is established against the electric utility, prior Iowa case law requires the plaintiff be compensated for the full value of the easement on his land to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property. Dalarna Farms v. Access Energy Coop.,792 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 2010).