Crawford v. Yotty, 11–0934.

• Decision Date: 15 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–0934.,11–0934.
• Parties: RenElla Sue CRAWFORD, Appellant, v. Steve YOTTY and Myron Ropp, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

828 N.W.2d 295

RenElla Sue CRAWFORD, Appellant,

v.Steve YOTTY and Myron Ropp, Appellees.

No. 11–0934.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 15, 2013.

Steven Gardner of Kiple, Denefe, Beaver, Gardner & Zingg, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellant.

Craig A. Levien of Betty, Neuman & McMahon, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellees.

ZAGER, Justice.

RenElla Sue Crawford brought suit against residential landlords, Steve Yotty and Myron Ropp, after she slipped and fell on the premises while visiting her son who leased an apartment from them. The jury returned a verdict for the landlords. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial after concluding the district court erred in excluding Crawford's proposed instructions informing the jury of a landlord's obligations under the lease agreement and under Iowa Code section 562A.15(1)( a )–( d ). On further review we find that the legal principles contained in Crawford's proposed instructions were adequately encompassed by the instructions given by the district court. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the district court's ruling.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History.

On the morning of February 22, 2008, Crawford arrived at her son's apartment to pick him and her two grandchildren up so they could spend the weekend with her at her home. After parking her car and walking to the apartment building, she slipped and fell on the steps leading down to her son's apartment.

On April 15, 2009, Crawford filed suit against the landlords and owners of the apartment building, Yotty and Ropp, alleging common law negligence. She further alleged failure to maintain the premises in accordance with the Iowa Uniform ResidentialLandlord and Tenant Act (IURLTA), and the rental agreement between the landlords and her son, Nathan Smith. Iowa Code § 562A.15(1)( a )–( d ) (2009). Crawford contended the steps on which she fell were unlit, covered in ice and snow, and lacked a handrail. In their answer, filed May 8, Yotty and Ropp denied Crawford's allegations of negligence.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial on May 17, 2011. On May 19, the court held a jury instruction conference at which time Crawford's counsel objected to the court's proposed instructions and requested additional instructions regarding the landlords' obligations under the IURLTA and their contractual obligations under the rental agreement. The court denied Crawford's request for additional instructions reasoning that the court's proposed instructions already encompassed the duties and obligations Crawford sought to include.

In subsequently instructing the jury on negligence and premises liability theories of recovery, the district court included the following instructions:

INSTRUCTION NO. 15

You must decide whether the claimed harm to the Plaintiff is within the scope of the Defendants' liability. The Plaintiff's claimed harm is within the scope of the Defendants' liability if that harm arises from the same general types of danger that the Defendants should have taken reasonable steps to avoid.

Consider whether repetition of the Defendants' conduct makes it more likely harm of the type the Plaintiff claims to have suffered would happen to another. If not, the harm is not within the scope of liability.

....

INSTRUCTION NO. 17

The Plaintiff must prove all of the following propositions:

1. The Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of a condition on their premises and that it involved an unreasonable risk of injury to a person in Plaintiff RenElla Crawford's position.

2. The Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known:

a. Plaintiff RenElla Crawford would not discover the condition, or

b. The Plaintiff would not realize the condition presented an unreasonable risk of injury, or

c. The Plaintiff would not protect herself from the condition.

3. The Defendants were negligent in:

a. Failing to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, or

b. Failing to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors.

4. The negligence was a cause of the Plaintiff's damage.

5. The amount of damage.

If the Plaintiff has failed to prove any of these propositions, the Plaintiff is not entitled to damages. If the Plaintiff has proven all of these propositions, then you will consider the defense of comparative fault....

....

INSTRUCTION NO. 19

Owners and landlords owe a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors. You may consider the following factors in evaluating whether the Defendants exercised reasonable care for the protection of the lawful visitors:

1. The foreseeability or possibility of harm;

2. The purpose for which the visitor entered the premises;

3. The time, manner, and circumstances under which the visitor entered the premises;

4. The use to which the premises are put or are expected to be put;

5. The reasonableness of the inspections, repair or warning;

6. The opportunity and ease of repair or correction or giving of the warning; and

7. The burden on the land occupier and/or community in terms of inconvenience or cost in providing adequate protection.

8. Any other factor shown by the evidence bearing on this question.

On May 20, the jury returned a jury verdict in favor of Yotty and Ropp. Crawford appealed arguing the district court committed reversible error by refusing to give her requested instruction regarding the landlords' contractual obligations and statutory duties under Iowa Code section 562A.15(1).

We transferred the case to the court of appeals, and a unanimous panel reversed the ruling of the district court and remanded for a new trial. In reaching its decision the court of appeals stated that the instructions given by the court

lack any explanation of common areas or the landlord's duty in respect to the common areas. The instructions also fail to explain this duty requires the landlord to use ordinary care measured by a reasonable and prudent person in defendant's position acting under like circumstances.

We granted the landlords' application for further review.

II. Standard of Review.

“We review challenges to jury instructions for correction of errors at law. ‘We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant's requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010) (citations omitted); see also In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Iowa 2005) (“We also review a district court's failure to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is based on a ground or reason that is clearly untenable or when the court's discretion is exercised to a clearly unreasonable degree.” Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 686 N.W.2d 150, 160 (Iowa 2004); see also Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 339 (Iowa 2006).

State v. Becker, 818 N.W.2d 135, 140 (Iowa 2012).

III. Discussion.

“Under Iowa law, a court must give a requested instruction when it states a correct rule of law applicable to the facts of the case and is not embodied in other instructions.” Smith v. Koslow, 757 N.W.2d 677, 683 (Iowa 2008). “If the concept behind the requested instruction is embodied in other instructions, the district court may properly reject the proposed instruction.” Hubbell Commercial Brokers, L.C. v. Fountain Three, 652 N.W.2d 151, 158 (Iowa 2002). “[E]rror in refusing to give a particular instruction does not warrant reversal unless the error is prejudicial.” Id. In other words, in order to prevail, Crawford must demonstrate that her requested jury instruction contained a correct statement of applicable law not covered by another instruction and that the court's refusal to give her requested instruction prejudiced her.

A. Applicable Law. In 1978, the general assembly enacted the IURLTA. 1978 Iowa Acts ch. 1172 (codified as Iowa Code chapter 562A (1979)). The act was substantially adopted from the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA).¹ Unif. Residential Landlord & Tenant Act (1972), 7B U.L.A. 285 (2006). The passage of the IURLTA was, in part, a codification of our ruling in Mease v. Fox in which we gave “ ‘overdue recognition ... [to] minimum housing standards' ” by holding “that a residential lease contained an implied warranty of habitability.” Lewis v. Jaeger, 818 N.W.2d 165, 179 (Iowa 2012) (quoting Mease v. Fox, 200 N.W.2d 791, 796–97 (Iowa 1972) (recognizing legislative policy of protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the community in the context of residential leases)); see also Russell E. Lovell II, The Iowa Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and the Iowa Mobile Home Parks Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, 31 Drake L.Rev. 253, 256–61 (1981).

Crawford's proposed instruction would have instructed the jury on certain obligations of a residential landlord under Iowa Code section 516A.15(1) (2009), as well as under the lease agreement between Smith and his landlords, Yotty and Ropp. Section 562A.15(1) provides in relevant part:

1. The landlord shall:

a. Comply with the requirements of applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety.

b. Make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.

c. Keep all common areas of the premises in a clean and safe condition. The landlord shall not be liable for any injury caused by any objects or materials which belong to or which have been placed by a tenant in the common areas of the premises used by the tenant.

d. Maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord.

The three instructions that Crawford asserts the district court...