Nichols v. Hocke, 64891
| Decision Date | 15 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 64891,64891 |
| Citation | 297 N.W.2d 205 |
| Parties | Joyce A. NICHOLS and Ronald Nichols, Appellants, v. Gerald E. HOCKE, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
John T. Nolan and Marc B. Moen, of Lucas, Nolan & Bohanan, Iowa City, for appellants.
Patrick M. Ryan of Goedken, Hintermeister & Ryan, Muscatine, for appellee.
Considered en banc.
We granted permission for this interlocutory appeal which challenges a trial court order for a pretrial hearing. The stated purpose of the hearing was to require plaintiffs to substantiate a claim for punitive damages. We find no authority to require such a claim to be established in advance of trial. Hence we reverse the trial court.
This is a tort suit which arose from a two-car accident. It is claimed defendant's vehicle struck plaintiffs from the rear. Plaintiffs' punitive damage claim came into the case by a late amendment filed by plaintiffs with permission. Iowa R.Civ.P. 88. Plaintiffs sought to support the claim for punitive damages by alleging defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Under Iowa law exemplary damages may be recovered against one who causes injury by operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Sebastian v. Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 106, 66 N.W.2d 841, 848 (1954). The record does not support defendant's belief that permission to file the late amendment was conditioned on the requirement to establish the punitive claim at a pretrial hearing. We express no views upon the power of the trial court to so conditionally allow a late amendment. It is enough here to consider whether a trial court generally holds the power to require a pretrial showing in order to present a punitive damages claim at trial.
The trial court entered the order setting a pretrial evidentiary hearing at which plaintiffs were to show that defendant was intoxicated and that this intoxication was a direct and proximate cause of their injuries. Plaintiffs were also to show their damages and that defendant's conduct was deliberate, willful, and malicious so as to entitle plaintiffs to exemplary damages. The trial court stated: "The purpose of the pretrial evidentiary hearing will be to determine whether or not the plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to permit the court to submit these issues to the jury." From the order setting the hearing the plaintiffs have brought this interlocutory appeal.
We agree with the plaintiffs that a trial court has no power under the rules of civil procedure, nor does it have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biswell v. Duncan
...Stoner, 60 Ga.App. 599, 4 S.E.2d 605 (1939)); Illinois (Madison v. Wigal, 18 Ill.App.2d 564, 153 N.E.2d 90 (1958)); Iowa (Nichols v. Hocke, 297 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 1980)) (citing Sebastian v. Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 66 N.W.2d 841 (1954)); Kentucky (Wiggington's Adm'r v. Rickert, 186 Ky. 650, 217 S.......
-
Johnson v. Rogers
...60 Ga.App. 599, 4 S.E.2d 605 (Ga.Ct.App.1939); Madison v. Wigal, 18 Ill.App.2d 564, 153 N.E.2d 90 (Ill.App.Ct.1958); Nichols v. Hocke, 297 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 1980) (citing Sebastian v. Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 66 N.W.2d 841 (1954)); Wiggington's Adm'r v. Rickert, 186 Ky. 650, 217 S.W. 933 (1920); H......
-
Campbell v. Van Roekel, 83-572
...to protect others is itself equivalent to gross and culpable negligence. See id. at 106, 66 N.W.2d at 848; see also Nichols v. Hocke, 297 N.W.2d 205, 205 (Iowa 1980) ("Under Iowa law exemplary damages may be recovered against one who causes injury by operating a motor vehicle while intoxica......