Butcher v. White's Iowa Institute, 94-0827
| Decision Date | 31 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-0827,94-0827 |
| Citation | 541 N.W.2d 262 |
| Parties | Charles BUTCHER and Lance Butcher, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WHITE'S IOWA INSTITUTE, A Nonprofit Corporation, a/k/a Quakerdale Wolf Ranch, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Ted Hogland and Barry S. Kaplan of Fairall, Fairall, Kaplan, Hoglan, Condon & Klaessy, Marshalltown, for appellants.
Michael S. Roling of Peddicord, Wharton, Thune & Spencer, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by HAYDEN, P.J., and HABHAB and HUITINK, JJ.
Charles Butcher and Lance Butcher appeal the district court's order granting judgment notwithstanding the jury's favorable verdict in their negligence action against White's Iowa Institute. We affirm.
Lance Butcher was injured when an automobile he was driving collided with a horse on Highway 30 near Marshalltown. Lance and Charles Butcher sued White's Iowa Institute (the Institute) alleging its failure to properly restrain a horse from running at large.
The parties stipulated that the horse escaped through a break in the Institute's fence caused by a truck rolling down a slope through the fence. The parties also agreed that the Institute owned the truck and the horse involved in this case.
The evidence offered at trial indicates the fence was regularly maintained, inspected, and of sufficient strength to restrain a horse. There is also evidence that the truck was last observed at 11 p.m. two days before accident, parked on a slope, unlocked, in gear, and with the parking brake engaged. After the accident, it was discovered that the truck rolled down the slope and broke a portion of the fence through which the horse escaped. When the truck was inspected following the accident, it was out of gear and the parking break was released.
The Institute's motion for a directed verdict at the close of Butchers' case was denied. The court deferred ruling on the Institute's renewed motion for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Butchers awarding them damages. The district court granted the Institute's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing the absence of any evidence that the fences were not in good repair except for the break caused by the truck. The district court also cited the absence of any evidence the truck was tampered with by anyone for whom the Institute could be held vicariously liable.
On appeal, Butchers argue there was sufficient evidence of negligence to create a jury question and that it was error for the district court to conclude otherwise.
Our review is limited to errors of law. Iowa R.App.P. 4. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must stand on grounds raised in the motion for a directed verdict. Watson v. Lewis, 272 N.W.2d 459, 463 (Iowa 1978). If there is substantial evidence in support of each element of plaintiffs' claim, a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied. Valadez v. City of Des Moines, 324 N.W.2d 475, 477-78 (Iowa 1982). When considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed. Konicek v. Loomis Bros., 457 N.W.2d 614, 617 (Iowa 1990). "Generally questions of negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause are for the jury; it is only in exceptional cases that they may be decided as a matter of law." Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(10).
Proof that an animal is roaming at large is prima facie evidence of negligence, not negligence per se, and this evidence may be rebutted by evidence of reasonable care under the circumstances. Leaders v. Dreher, 169 N.W.2d 570, 573 (Iowa 1969). Generally, prima facie evidence is sufficient to generate a jury question. Id.
Butchers were afforded the benefit of this presumption when the district court denied the Institute's motion for a directed verdict at the close...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyngarden v. Iowa Judicial Branch, 16-1945
...for directed verdict until all evidence has been presented...." Royal Indem. , 786 N.W.2d at 845 ; see also Butcher v. White’s Iowa Inst. , 541 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (applying the Uhlenhopp rule). "District courts are encouraged to deny motions for directed verdict, even if i......
-
Dobratz v. Krier
...end of the plaintiff's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence citing the "Uhlenhopp Rule." See Butcher v. White's Iowa Inst., 541 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). The district court explained: "Doing so gives the jury an opportunity to consider the evidence, return a verdi......
-
Table of Cases
...Cos. , 838 So.2d 67 (La. Ct. App. 2003), §10:05 Burnett v. Rice , 529 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1988), §10:03 Butcher v. White’s Iowa Institute , 541 N.W.2d 262 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995), §10:08 C Callahan v. City and County of San Francisco (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 696, §17:161 Christenson v. Rincker , 680......
-
Collisions With Livestock on Roadways
...evidence of defendant’s negligence so that plaintiff’s case should have been submitted to jury); Butcher v. White’s Iowa Institute , 541 N.W.2d 262 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (insufficient evidence of horse owner’s negligence when horse escaped through hole in fence caused by defendant’s truck, w......