Fulps v. City of Urbandale
Citation | 956 N.W.2d 469 |
Decision Date | 19 March 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 19-0221,19-0221 |
Parties | Laura H. FULPS and Charles B. Fulps, Appellants, v. CITY OF URBANDALE, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
David J. Hellstern (argued) of Sullivan & Ward, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellants.
Thomas M. Boes (until withdrawal) of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, and then Jason C. Palmer (argued) of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
This case requires us again to address the scope of the public-duty doctrine. Cities in Iowa have a statutory and common law duty to build and maintain the public sidewalks in safe condition and for breach of that duty have historically been subject to suit. This historic rule is not at odds with the public-duty doctrine. Generally, that doctrine comes into play when a governmental entity fails to take action (nonfeasance) with respect to a third party—typically by failing to exercise statutory authority with respect to the third party's activity. Such a failure to enforce a statute enacted for the public benefit is considered a breach of a "public duty" and not enough to give rise to a tort action. But defectively constructed or poorly maintained sidewalks are a different matter. There, the governmental entity is simply being held legally responsible for its own property and work.
With these principles in mind, we conclude that a lawsuit brought by an injured pedestrian against a city over a defective city sidewalk should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim based on the public-duty doctrine. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Because this case involves an appeal from the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we assume the truth of the well-pleaded factual allegations of the petition.
On October 9, 2016, plaintiff Laura Fulps was volunteering for an event held in the Cobblestone Shopping Center located at the corner of 86th Street and Hickman Road in Urbandale. While walking along the 86th Street sidewalk, Fulps fell. The cause of her fall was the condition of the sidewalk: it was uneven, damaged, and improperly maintained. As a result of the fall, Fulps broke her arm and wrist. She had to have surgery and has sustained temporary and permanent injuries.
On October 8, 2018, Fulps and her spouse sued the City of Urbandale in the Polk County District Court. Fulps's claim was for negligence. Specifically, Fulps alleged the City had failed to properly maintain, repair, and warn about the dangerous, defective, and uneven sidewalk. Fulps sought damages including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income. Fulps's spouse brought a separate claim for loss of consortium.1
In lieu of answering, the City filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Citing Johnson v. Humboldt County , 913 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 2018), the City urged that the public-duty doctrine barred Fulps's claims. In her resistance, Fulps responded that a municipality does owe a legal duty to pedestrians to maintain sidewalks.
Following a hearing, the district court entered a ruling on January 25, 2019, granting the City's motion to dismiss. Fulps appealed, and we retained the appeal.
"We review rulings on motions to dismiss for correction of errors at law." Karon v. Elliott Aviation , 937 N.W.2d 334, 339 (Iowa 2020).
Id. at 336–37, 26 N.W.2d at 94.
In Spechtenhauser v. City of Dubuque , we affirmed a jury verdict against a city in "a sidewalk fall down case." 391 N.W.2d 213, 213 (Iowa 1986) (en banc). We stated that "sidewalks are a portion of the city street reserved for pedestrian traffic for which the city bears a responsibility of care, supervision, and control." Id. at 214–15.
Additionally, there has long been a statute on the books that governs personal injury claims against special charter cities "resulting from defective streets or sidewalks." Iowa Code § 420.45 (2021); see also Gleason v. City of Davenport , 275 N.W.2d 431, 436 (Iowa 1979) ( ). The presence of statutory language referring to defective street and sidewalk claims indicates that such claims are available against municipalities.
This principle of municipal liability makes sense given that the city owns the sidewalk. See Peffers v. City of Des Moines , 299 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Iowa 1980) (), superseded on other grounds by 1984 Iowa Acts ch. 1002, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 364.12(2) (1985)). In fact, Peffers took note of "the existing state of our case law holding, the city rather than the abutting property owner liable to pedestrians." Id. at 679.
This gets us to Madden v. City of Iowa City , 848 N.W.2d 40 (Iowa 2014). In that case, a bicyclist fell while riding on a sidewalk in Iowa City and brought a negligence action against the city for failing to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition. Id. at 42. The city filed a cross-petition against the owner of the abutting property (the State of Iowa) seeking contribution based on a city ordinance. Id. We affirmed denial of the owner's motion to dismiss the cross-petition. Id. at 43.
Id. at 45–46 (omissions in original) (quoting Iowa Code § 364.12(2) ). We further noted that the city had enacted an ordinance requiring abutting property owners to maintain sidewalks in a state of good repair, and free from defects, and providing that the abutting property owner may be liable for damages caused by failure to maintain the sidewalk. Id. at 46.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maldonado v. City of Sibley
...from the third party or other independent force. Even then, the existence of a special relationship will negate the public duty doctrine. Id. at 473-74. practice, courts seem more likely to apply the public duty doctrine when a government employee negligently fails to act and allows harm to......
-
Farrell v. State
...the use of the defendants’ instrumentality-of-harm test. The parties filed supplemental briefs after we decided Fulps v. City of Urbandale , 956 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa 2021).The court of appeals reversed and held the public-duty doctrine bars all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the government d......
-
The Estate of Farrell v. State
...use of the defendants' instrumentality-of-harm test. The parties filed supplemental briefs after we decided Fulps v. City of Urbandale, 956 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa 2021). The court of appeals reversed and held the public-duty doctrine bars all of the plaintiffs' claims against the government defen......
-
The Estate of Farrell v. State
...as a limit on suing a governmental entity for not protecting the public from harm caused by the activities of a third party." Fulps, 956 N.W.2d at 475. The doctrine comes into play when two things occur: "the injury to the plaintiff was directly caused or inflicted by a third party or other......