We have written detailed reviews of Iowa law impacting agricultural producers and landowners. Access these reviews by clicking on the tiles below. You can also review Iowa cases on a particular subject by searching our list of Iowa case law reviews at the bottom of this page.
Search Iowa Resources
One fundamental principle of the law governing surface water is that it is wrongful for a landowner to disturb the existing pattern of drainage and, as a result, obstruct the flow of water from someone else’s property, or cast upon someone else’s property more water than would naturally flow on it, or cause an unusually high concentration of water in the course of drainage. That’s a big issue for rural landowners owning land next to a tract that is being developed or, as in this case, owning land near a highway construction project.
Sometimes landowners, especially in small towns, tend to ignore city ordinances when building and/or placing structures either on their property or adjacent to it. Often, public officials in these small communities either tend to not enforce existing ordinances or enforce them inconsistently. But, if a city chooses to enforce a restriction against obstructing a public right-of-way, must the city show that the obstruction interferes with travel or causes some sort of damage? That was the issue in this case.
This case involves both contract and tort claims resulting from the plaintiff breaking a tooth upon biting into an olive with the pit inside. The plaintiff opened a jar of “minced pimento stuffed” olives and used some of the olives on a salad. Upon eating the salad, the plaintiff bit down onto an olive pit (or fragment) and fractured a tooth. The defendant imported the olives from Spain. They were shipped to the U.S. in 150-kilogram drums to Virginia, where the drums were emptied and the olives washed and put in glass jars for retail sale.
Over the years, the Iowa courts have dealt with many nuisance cases both in an agricultural and non-agricultural context. Two points are clear from the rulings – one landowner cannot unreasonably interfere with another landowners use and enjoyment of their property; and negligence is not the same thing as nuisance. On the latter point, it doesn’t matter if a landowner has obtained all of the necessary permits, is conducting their activity in accordance with best management practices and is incompliance with all applicable zoning rules - the activity can still be deemed to be a nuisance.
This case involves a wrongful death action against the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT). The decedent was killed by a train at a railroad crossing. Prior to the accident, the DOT had removed rumble strips and replaced them with a flashing light placed on top of a stop sign that was at an intersection south of the railroad crossing. However, the light was not working on the night of the accident.
Bailment situations arise frequently in agriculture. A bailment exists when personal property is delivered by one person (the bailor) to another person (the bailee) for a specific purpose that benefits either the bailor, the bailee, or both, with the understanding that the personal property will be returned at the end of the bailment. So, for example, when one farmer borrows another farmer’s tractor, that is a bailment, and a bailment relationship is created between the parties. What happens if the tractor is damaged or destroyed during the bailment?
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.
The Iowa Court of Appeals has decided two cases involving employer liability – one case involving the issue of an employer’s liability to an employee for an on-the-job injury, and a second case involving the question of when an employer is liable for injuries to a patron that an employee causes.
Trampolines can be the cause of serious injury, especially to minor children. This case concerns liability for a trampoline accident involving neighbors. In 2003, the defendants hosted a backyard barbeque and invited friends over for a relaxing afternoon. The defendants owned a trampoline that came complete with set-up instructions and a user’s manual. The plaintiff began jumping on the trampoline with her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend. But, when she landed from a jump, she severely broke her ankle.
In assessing fault for tort claims, Iowa law exempts municipalities from being assessed a percentage of fault under certain circumstances. One of those situations involves snow and ice removed from “streets.” But does that protection extend to sidewalks?
In Iowa, a landowner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain reasonably safe conditions for invited guests and persons coming on the premises for business purposes. But, does the landowner have to keep a look-out for dangerous conditions, or simply have notice of the dangerous condition and an opportunity to make the premises safe before being held liable? In other words, just exactly what is the extent of the duty? Does it include snow and ice removal? That was the precise issue in this case.
The plaintiffs began the construction of their home in 1995. As part of the building process, they purchased windows at a local business which were installed by a general contractor. Two years later, the plaintiffs noticed water stains and dampness in the walls beneath the windows. Despite repairs, the problems continued and resulted in significant damage to the walls, carpet, insulation, garage, etc. When the plaintiffs’ daughter suffered an allergic reaction to the moldy, rotten wood and insulation, the plaintiffs filed sued to recover for property damage and personal injury.
Interesting items can turn up in food products, and sometimes they can cause injury. What does it take to recover for injuries in such a case? Under the modern approach, the injured party must prove five elements in order to recover on a product liability claim – (1) that the defendant sold the product and was engaged in the business of selling the product; (2) that the product was in a defective condition; (3) that the defective condition was unreasonably dangerous to an ordinary user during normal use; (4) that the product was expected to reach the user without substantial change in co
The plaintiffs, a decedent’s estate and another individual injured in the same accident that caused the decedent’s death, sued for damages incurred as a result of escaped anhydrous ammonia from a nurse tank that had ruptured along the tank’s longitudinal weld. The wrongful death suit claimed that the anhydrous manufacturer and other supply chain parties were negligent in their failure to warn the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s employer (a local cooperative in Calamus, Iowa) of the dangers associated with older nurse tanks and their potential for failure without the appropriate internal insp