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
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.
A private nuisance constitutes an interference with a person’s private use and enjoyment of their property. That principle was at issue in this case involving a dispute between neighbors. The plaintiffs’ home was located 40-feet east of the defendants’ home. The defendant’s sole heat source was a wood-burning furnace. In 2008, the plaintiffs sued alleging that the use of the wood-burning furnace was a nuisance.
The landlord rented a single-family house to a couple. Before signing the rental agreement, the parties discussed the tenants’ pit bull “Chopper” and the tenants paid an additional $30 per month to keep their pet on the premises. A few months later, a neighbor crossed the street to talk to one of the tenants and Chopper bit the neighbor’s hand. The neighbor sued the tenants and the landlord. As for the landlord, the neighbor alleged that the landlord failed to take reasonable precautions to protect persons in common areas from a dangerous dog.
Normally, for employment-related injuries, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for a worker in Iowa. But, in this case, a worker in an egg processing plant made a claim for workers’ compensation coverage and also sued her co-workers for injuries sustained while cleaning an egg-breaking machine. In Iowa, to successfully sue a co-worker for injuries sustained on a job covered by workers’ compensation, one must prove “gross negligence” on the part of the co-worker. Basically, this means that the co-worker must have known that the injury was probable based on their actions.
Here, the plaintiff (dairy farmer) decided to expand his operations and contacted the defendant (contractor) to obtain a bid for the construction of a new milking parlor. The plaintiff accepted the defendant’s bid and the defendant designed a customized system for water storage on the dairy. At trial, the plaintiff testified that he consistently experienced problems with the water storage system. For instance, he had trouble keeping the water clean and he noticed a steady decline in the herd’s health and milk production.
In certain employment situations, an employer may be held liable to third persons for the acts of their employees- this is called vicarious liability. If an employer is held vicariously liable, they may owe a duty of care to third parties that are injured by an employee.
In 2003, a dispute developed between a farmer and a grain cooperative when the cooperative allegedly improperly applied herbicide to the farmer’s land. In 2008, the plaintiff farmer filed suit against the defendant cooperative, asking the trial court to award damages based upon the loss of yields he sustained. During the trial and throughout the suit, the plaintiff, unrepresented by legal counsel, was repeatedly admonished by the court to comply with the court’s rules of procedure.
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.
Punitive damages are not awarded that often in tort cases. When they are, it’s usually because the defendant’s conduct is viewed as being so bad that the court believes it is necessary to punish the defendant in addition to any actual damages that are awarded to the plaintiff. But, what if the defendant dies before the court action is concluded. Should punitive damages still be awarded? If the purpose of granting them is to punish the offender, death of the offender would seem to eliminate the purpose of punitive damages.
In 2006, the plaintiff in this case was injured when the vehicle he was driving was struck by a concrete pumper truck on his way home from work. The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against the company that owned the truck for the injuries he sustained and subsequently settled the suit. Here, the owner of company owning the truck was also a partial owner of the company the plaintiff worked for. Nine months after the plaintiff settled the personal injury suit, his employment with the defendant was terminated.
While most property owners in Iowa know they are required to keep their sidewalks clear of ice and snow accumulation, they might not know that they have a responsibility to keep their sidewalks in good repair. Iowa Code § 364.12(d) (2011) requires property owners to maintain the sidewalks adjacent to their property. Some cities have codified this requirement as well. When a property owner fails to fix deficiencies, liability can result for any injuries to others resulting from the poor condition of the sidewalk. That is exactly what happened in this case.
Most of the time, factual issues and legal consequences of the facts in a lawsuit are disputed and sorted out through the course of litigation. Likewise, there is generally evidence supporting legal theories for recovery. If, however, there is no evidence to support a legal claim against a party, the attorney has an obligation to recognize (hopefully before trial) that there is no legal claim and resolve the matter. In this case, the continuation of a lawsuit in the absence of any proof warranted sanctions against the attorney.
At the heart of every negligent tort case are the elements of duty, breach, causation and damages. The elements are like links in a chain – each must be established for a plaintiff to prevail. In other words, the plaintiff must prove all four elements or his claim with fail. This case is an illustration of the necessity of establishing all four elements to prevail on a negligent tort claim.
Here, the widow of the decedent disagreed with the decedent’s brother over the proper disposition of a 120-acre farm. The farm was deeded to the decedent and his brother in 1969 by their mother, as tenants in common. The brothers orally created a farm partnership. The brothers rented the land to a tenant on a crop-share basis, put the income into a partnership account, and annually filed a partnership tax return for federal income tax purposes.
Here, a father and two sons formed a farm partnership by a written agreement in 1985. In 1995, the father and sons also signed articles of incorporation, forming a woodworking business. The profits from both entities were to be divided equally between the three. In 2007, one brother filed suit, seeking dissolution of both entities. The father and other son countersued, seeking dismissal of the petition for dissolution and demanding an accounting of both entities and an order for the son seeking the dissolution to withdraw from both entities.