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
Under the general rule, a landlord is not liable for the acts of a tenant that cause harm to another person or their property. The reason is that the tenant has the possession over the leasehold premises during the tenancy and has control over what occurs on the leased property. But, what if the tenant does something that harms another person (such as an adjacent owner) and the landlord knows about the tenant’s actions and renews the lease without requiring a change in the tenant’s conduct? Is the landlord liable in that situation?
A tort is a civil (as opposed to criminal) wrong or injury, other than breach of contract, for which a court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. But, in some situations, an individual is privileged to commit what would otherwise be a battery (a physical touching of another person that is neither consented to nor privileged) or an assault, or both. One of those situations involves athletic events where the tort occurs during the course of play before the whistle has blown. The conduct may result in a penalty and a suspension, but it is not compensable via the civil
A tort is a civil wrong to another person or their property. But, what damages can be recovered? The answer to that question is almost always tied to the plaintiff’s ability to prove actual damages. That point was illustrated in this case. Here, the defendant needed a dredge to assist in pumping out a dairy farm manure lagoon. The defendant leased a dredge from the plaintiff, an Indiana firm, with the lease agreement providing that the defendant would insure the dredge while it was in his possession and that he would return it in the same condition as when received, normal wear and tea
The liability of landowners or possessors of real property for injuries suffered by third party entrants has traditionally depended upon the benefit that the entrant bestowed upon the owner or possessor. The law in most jurisdictions creates a hierarchy of status approach that bases liability on the status of the entrant. Under this approach, the adult trespasser is given the lowest status, while child trespassers and invitees are given the highest status. Mid-level status is given to social guests.
Is a public school employee liable for negligent acts committed in the scope of their employment, or is worse conduct required before recovery can be obtained? That was the issue involved in this case.
Nuisances, an invasion of an individual’s use and enjoyment of the land, are typically classified in two ways. A private nuisance is a civil wrong, based on a disturbance of rights in land and a public nuisance is an interference with the rights of the community at large.
In this case, a mother and her ex-con son operated a hog farm on 500 acres. They had an operating loan of $125,000 with a local bank. Because of the availability of lower interest rates, they became interested in refinancing the loan. But, one of the son’s fellow ex-inmates also had interests in a start-up company that both Mom and son became considered investing in – even though they didn’t have the necessary funds. That’s when an third party rode to the rescue and helped the son find the funds to invest.
Every negligent tort case contains four elements that a plaintiff must establish in order to prevail – (1) duty (2) breach (3) causation and (4) damages.
Here, co-workers were driving a non-work vehicle to a job-site when the vehicle collided with another vehicle on the interstate. The passenger claimed that the driver was driving his own personal vehicle negligently and was, therefore, liable as the driver of the vehicle for his injuries. The driver responded that since they were co-employees and in the scope of their employment at the time, the passenger’s damages were limited to those allowable under worker’s compensation.
Preserving adequate documentation is critical when a farmer claims crop damage from the application of weed control chemicals. In this case, a farmer owned farmland and rented additional tracts of land from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR contract specified that the farmer was required to leave ten percent of the crop grown on the rented fields unharvested for use as a nature preserve. The land owned by the DNR and rented to the farmer contained some sandy areas which were adversely affected by extreme heat and lack of moisture.
In Iowa, “if boundaries and corners alleged to have been recognized and acquiesced in for ten years have been so recognized and acquiesced in, such recognized boundaries and corners shall be permanently established” (Iowa Code §650.14).
What is an individual’s duty of care as a “possessor of the land”? In Iowa, if a person that owns or possesses property permits a third person to come onto the premises, he is under a duty of care to reasonably control the conduct of that person. This means that the owner or possessor must prevent the entrant from intentionally harming others. The Iowa Court of Appeals recently examined this issue, bringing to light a parent’s duty to control the actions of those entering onto their property.
To be an effective “shield” against liability, a release form must be drafted carefully and must be clear, unambiguous, explicit and not violate public policy. Several courts from around the country have discussed the use of release forms and assumption of risk by individuals engaging in these types of activities. Generally, most civil liability suits will be barred by a valid release form, as long as the release form does not controvert public policy in that jurisdiction.
Iowa Code §335.2 exempts agricultural land from county zoning regulations. But, does that exemption apply to a wastewater storage lagoon? In this case, the plaintiffs argued for an exemption on the basis that the lagoon had an agricultural purpose. The county board of adjustment disagreed, and the plaintiff’s appealed to the county district court.