Johnson v. Humboldt Cnty.
Decision Date | 08 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1896,16-1896 |
Citation | 913 N.W.2d 256 |
Parties | Kaitlyn JOHNSON, Appellant, v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Conrad F. Meis of Buchanan, Bibler, Gabor, and Meis, Algona, and Michael K. Bush and John C. Bush of Bush, Motto, Creen, Koury & Halligan, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant.
Rene Charles Lapierre and Ryland Deinert of Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellee.
Joel E. Fenton of Law Offices of Joel E. Fenton, PLC, Des Moines, and Jessica A. Zupp, Denison, for amicus curiae Iowa Association of Justice.
Thomas M. Boes and Catherine M. Lucas of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for amici curiae Iowa League of Cities, Iowa Defense Counsel Association, Iowa State Association of County Supervisors, and Iowa Municipal Utilities Association.
This case involves a single-vehicle accident that occurred when a vehicle went off a county road and into a ditch, then struck a concrete embankment in the ditch. The embankment had been constructed by a private landowner. It was on the private landowner’s land, although the county had a right-of-way easement where part of the embankment was located.
A passenger in the vehicle sustained serious injuries. She sued the county and the current landowner seeking recovery. She alleged the county should have caused the removal of the concrete embankment from the ditch. The district court denied summary judgment to the landowner but granted it to the county based on the public-duty doctrine. The plaintiff appealed.
On our review, we are guided by our recent decision in Estate of McFarlin v. State , 881 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa 2016). There we held that the public-duty doctrine barred a claim against the State of Iowa relating to the placement of and lack of warnings on a dredge pipe in a recreational lake owned and managed by the state. Id. at 58. A boater struck the dredge pipe, resulting in fatal injuries to one of the boat’s passengers. Id. at 53. Estate of McFarlin reaffirmed our earlier public-duty precedents and also held that the doctrine remains good law under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. Id. at 60. Based on Estate of McFarlin , we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
At approximately 2:30 a.m. on March 3, 2013, David Helmers and Kaitlyn Johnson, who at that time was Helmers’s spouse, were traveling on a county road in Humboldt County in a Chevy Silverado pickup. Helmers was driving. He fell asleep at the wheel, and the vehicle crossed the other side of the road and then veered into a roadside ditch. Helmers never applied the brakes, and the vehicle continued in the ditch for over 200 feet before it struck a concrete embankment in the ditch. Johnson suffered serious injuries in the accident, including paralysis and brain damage. The car was traveling approximately 58 miles per hour when it hit the embankment.
The embankment had been built by Donald Becker and his father-in-law in 1972. It was part of a cattle grid that allowed people and their vehicles, but not livestock, to cross the ditch at that spot. The embankment and the grid were entirely on the Beckers’ private property, although most of the embankment fell within the county’s right-of-way easement relating to the road.
On December 31, 2014, Johnson filed suit against Humboldt County and the current landowners, Donald and Sandra Becker. Johnson alleged that the County was negligent in failing to cause the removal of the embankment. She relied on general negligence principles, premises liability, public nuisance, and Iowa Code sections 670.2 and 318.4. See Iowa Code § 670.2 (2013) (); id . § 318.4 ().
An initial summary judgment motion filed by the County was denied. Later, the County filed a second motion for summary judgment, specifically raising the public-duty doctrine.
"We review a district court’s ruling on summary judgment for correction of errors at law." Estate of McFarlin , 881 N.W.2d at 56 (quoting Thomas v. Gavin , 838 N.W.2d 518, 521 (Iowa 2013) ). "The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id . (quoting Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc. , 818 N.W.2d 244, 253 (Iowa 2012) ).
A. The Public-Duty Doctrine. "Under the public-duty doctrine, ‘if a duty is owed to the public generally, there is no liability to an individual member of that group.’ " Id. at 58 (quoting Kolbe v. State , 625 N.W.2d 721, 729 (Iowa 2001) ). "[A] breach of duty owed to the public at large is not actionable unless the plaintiff can establish, based on the unique or particular facts of the case, a special relationship between the [governmental entity ] and the injured plaintiff ...." Kolbe , 625 N.W.2d at 729. We have applied this doctrine on various occasions to preclude tort claims by individuals against the government.
In Kolbe , we held that the doctrine precluded a negligence claim against the state for its issuance of a driver’s license to a driver with a congenital visual impairment. Id . at 729–30. The driver struck a bicyclist, severely injuring him. Id . at 724. We rejected the bicyclist’s assertion that the state owed him a duty as a member of a "particularized class—rightful users of the Iowa roads." Id. at 728, 729–30. We found instead that the licensing provisions in chapter 321 of the Iowa Code were for the benefit of the public at large and thus the plaintiff could not "avoid the preclusive effect of the public duty doctrine by claiming membership in a special, identifiable group for whose benefit the statutes were enacted." Id. at 729–30.
In Summy v. City of Des Moines , we again examined the public-duty doctrine, this time finding that it did not apply based on the facts of that case. 708 N.W.2d 333, 344 (Iowa 2006), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699, 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016). In Summy , a golfer who was golfing on a city-owned golf course was struck by an errant golf ball. Id . at 335. He challenged the design of the golf course, alleging there was an unreasonable danger that a golfer playing the eighteenth hole would be struck by tee shots from the first hole. Id . at 336. We held the public-duty doctrine did not apply because the duty at issue "was one owed to invitees on the golf course, not to the public at large." Id. at 344.
In Raas v. State , we considered the public-duty doctrine in the context of claims brought by two individuals who were injured by inmates who had escaped from the Iowa Medical and Classification Center in Oakdale. 729 N.W.2d 444, 446 (Iowa 2007). One of the individuals was attacked while in the parking lot of the facility; the other while fishing in the Iowa River some distance away. Id . at 446. We found that the plaintiff who was "lawfully in the parking lot of the Oakdale Facility ... that day during the regularly scheduled visiting hours" had status "as an invitee," so the public-duty doctrine did not apply. Id . at 450. The other plaintiff’s claim, however, was subject to the public-duty doctrine, as he was "only a member of the public at large." Id. We emphasized that the public-duty doctrine was "alive and well in Iowa." Id. at 449.
Most recently, in Estate of McFarlin , we again reexamined and applied the doctrine. 881 N.W.2d at 64 ( ). We found that the plaintiffs’ claims arising out of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeSousa v. Iowa Realty Co.
...in control of a jobsite. Having a right to enter property is not the equivalent of possession or control. See Johnson v. Humboldt Cnty. , 913 N.W.2d 256, 263 (Iowa 2018) (noting that an easement does not give possession of land). And scheduling a time for a potential buyer and their agent t......
-
Maldonado v. City of Sibley
...safety-related duties . . . were owed to the general public, ” and precluded the plaintiff's claims against the state. Id. at 63. In Johnson, the plaintiff sued the county for to remove a privately-owned concrete embankment in a ditch, relying on statutory duties and common law negligence. ......
-
Fulps v. City of Urbandale
...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 municipal......
-
Blazek v. City of Nev.
...doctrine "does not allow individuals to sue the government for breach of a duty owed to the public at large." Johnson v. Humboldt Cty. , 913 N.W.2d 256, 259 (Iowa 2018). A plaintiff can maintain an action against a government actor, however, if they "can establish, based on the unique or pa......