Martin v. Crook, No. 9-491/08-1711 (Iowa App. 8/6/2009)
| Decision Date | 06 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 9-491/08-1711,9-491/08-1711 |
| Parties | DAVID MARTIN, ANDREA MARTIN, and DAVID MARTIN as Parent and Next Friend of Audrey Martin, David Martin Jr., and Micah Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. GRAHAM CROOK, THE HERTZ CORPORATION, HERTZ RENTAL CAR, L.L.C., and FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Donna L. Paulsen, Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the defendants-appellees in a case involving a collision by the side of a highway. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Martin A. Diaz and Elizabeth J. Craig, Iowa City, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Randy J. Wilharber and Joseph M. Barron of Peddicord, Wharton, Spencer, Hook, Barron & Wegman, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee Graham Crook.
Angel A. West and Hannah M. Rogers of Nyemaster, Goode, West, Hansell & O'Brien, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees/cross-appellants The Hertz Corporation and Hertz Rental Car, L.L.C.
Considered by Eisenhauer, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
On Christmas Eve 2004, the Martin family, David, Andrea, and their three children, pulled off a highway in their minivan to help two people whose vehicle was stranded in a ditch. Shortly thereafter, David Martin was seriously injured when a Hertz rental car driven by Graham Crook skidded on the icy highway and struck him. Martin and his wife subsequently sued Crook, The Hertz Corporation, and Hertz Rental Car, L.L.C. on behalf of themselves and their children for negligence. Following a jury verdict for the defendants, the Martins unsuccessfully moved for a new trial. The Martins now appeal, contending the verdict was not supported by the evidence.
The defendants argue there was sufficient evidence that Crook was not negligent. They also maintain that even if the jury verdict cannot stand, the district court should have given legal excuse and sudden emergency instructions, and should have dismissed the bystander emotional distress claims. Additionally, the Hertz companies argue that federal law preempts Iowa's owner liability statute making them vicariously liable for any negligence of Crook.
We reverse and remand because we conclude a new trial is required on the Martins' negligence claims against Crook. However, as discussed below, we also hold that the Hertz defendants should be dismissed from the case based on federal preemption, that the bystander emotional distress claims on behalf of the Martins' children should not have been submitted to the jury, and that the legal excuse and sudden emergency instructions should have been given.
Based on the trial evidence, a juror could have found the following facts: On December 23, 2004, the Martin family left their Iowa City home to visit family in New Orleans, Louisiana. David and Andrea Martin took turns driving their family minivan. Crook left his Ankeny home that same day to visit a friend in Alabama. Crook, a professional long-distance semi-truck driver, drove a Ford Mustang that he rented from Hertz for the trip.
On the morning of December 24, 2004, the Martins and Crook were both traveling south on Interstate 55 through Arkansas. The skies were clear, but icy patches intermittently covered the road. Andrea drove the Martin family minivan that morning. She described the traffic as light, and did not notice any cars along the side of the road before the accident site. She maintained a speed of about twenty-five miles per hour on the interstate because of the icy conditions.
At about 7:30 that morning, Andrea and David saw a vehicle in the ditch to the right of the road. They noticed two people still inside the stranded vehicle, and decided to pull over to help. Andrea and the children waited inside their minivan along the shoulder while David walked back to the stranded car. The two occupants of the stranded car stepped outside to talk to David as he approached.
Meanwhile, Crook's car was a short distance behind the Martins' minivan. According to his testimony, he varied his speed according to the road conditions, driving as fast as fifty miles per hour when the road was clear and slowing to as little as twenty miles per hour on icy patches. When Crook first saw the stranded car about a half-mile away, he moved into the left-hand lane as a courtesy to anyone standing outside the stranded car to his right. Several cars were moving on the highway ahead of Crook, and all of them stayed in the right-hand lane at this time. He soon noticed a large sheet of ice covering the highway, and removed his foot from the accelerator and brake pedals to coast across the ice. His speed at this time was between twenty and thirty-five miles per hour.
As Crook neared the stranded car, the vehicles ahead of him also moved into the left-hand lane, either intentionally or because they were skidding. Some of them lost control on the ice and began sliding and zig-zagging.1 Crook felt he needed to tap the brakes to avoid hitting one of the sliding vehicles ahead of him. When he applied the brakes, he immediately lost control of his car and slid directly into the stranded car and the three individuals standing beside it. One of those individuals died at the scene of the accident. David was seriously hurt and was transported by helicopter to a Memphis hospital for emergency care. Cars continued to slide off the highway until the authorities shut it down because of the icy conditions.
David spent the next few days in the hospital undergoing treatment for his injuries. He was released on December 27, and needed a cane to walk for more than three months after the accident. He also suffered a head injury that caused changes in his mood and memory loss. Andrea and the children experienced the shock of seeing David immediately after the accident, and cared for him while he recovered.
David and Andrea filed a civil action against Crook on March 31, 2006, alleging that he had operated his car in a negligent manner, thereby causing David's injuries. Relying on Iowa Code section 321.493 (2005),2 the Martins also alleged that Hertz was vicariously liable as the owner of the Ford Mustang for Crook's negligence.
The Hertz companies pled an affirmative defense of preemption in their answer. This was based on the Graves Amendment to the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" ("SAFETEA-LU"), which provides:
An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if—
(1) The owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and
(2) There is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner).
49 U.S.C. § 30106(a). By its terms, the Graves Amendment applies to all actions commenced on or after its August 10, 2005 effective date. Id. § 30106(c).3
The district court struck Hertz's preemption defense, holding that it would be unconstitutional to apply the Graves Amendment to a cause of action that had already accrued when it was enacted. (As noted above, the accident here occurred on December 24, 2004, approximately eight months before Congress passed the Graves Amendment, although the Martins did not sue until March 31, 2006.)
This case was tried to a jury. At the close of the evidence, the district court granted the Martins' motion for directed verdict on the legal excuse and sudden emergency defenses, reasoning that Crook was aware of the icy conditions. As the court put it, "I don't see how, even in looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants, you can say that this is a situation that's an unforeseen combination of circumstances." Accordingly, the district court refused the defendants' requests for jury instructions on those defenses. The district court also denied the defendants' motion for directed verdict on the bystander emotional distress claims brought on behalf of Andrea and her three children. In addition, the district court once again rejected Hertz's position on federal preemption.
The jury was given a general instruction (No. 12) that negligence means failure to use ordinary care. Ordinary care is the care which a reasonably careful person would use under similar circumstances. "Negligence" is doing something a reasonably careful person would not do under similar circumstances, or failing to do something a reasonably careful person would do under similar circumstances.
See Iowa Civ. Jury Instructions 700.2. The jury was also instructed as to certain rules of the road, and that violation of any of these rules would amount to negligence. Thus, Instruction No. 14 stated, Also, Instruction No. 15 stated,
A vehicle shall be driven on the right half of the road and a driver shall not turn a vehicle from a direct course on a highway unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety. A violation of this law is negligence.
During deliberations, the jury raised a question about a possible inconsistency between the general negligence instruction (No. 12) and the specific rules of the road instructions (Nos. 14-16). Although the question was not preserved as part of the record on appeal, the record shows that the district court advised the jury:
The jury instructions are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial