Reilly v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 08 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-1825.,04-1825. |
| Citation | 727 N.W.2d 102 |
| Parties | Nicholas REILLY, Dennis Reilly, and Marcia Reilly, Appellees, v. Christopher J. ANDERSON, Michael M. Anderson, and IMT Insurance Company, Appellants, Alan J. Naughton and Richard Naughton, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
John B. Grier of Cartwright, Druker & Ryden, Marshalltown, for appellant IMT Insurance Company.
Brian Yung of Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellants Andersons.
John M. Trewet of Rutherford, Trewet & Knuth, Atlantic, for appellees Reillys.
William H. Roemerman of Crawford, Sullivan, Read & Roemerman, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees Naughtons.
In this case, we must primarily decide whether the theory of concerted action is compatible with our statutory comparative fault principles. We hold the theory of concerted action, despite requiring joint and several liability among concerted actors, is compatible with Iowa's Comparative Fault Act (CFA). We reverse the district court's decision holding otherwise, and remand for a new trial.
On August 11, 2000, Christopher Anderson (Anderson), Alan Naughton (Naughton), and Nicholas Reilly (Reilly) set out in a Jeep owned by Anderson's father to go fishing at a pond outside Marshalltown. Anderson drove, Naughton rode as the front seat passenger, and Reilly sat in the back. On the way to the pond, Anderson produced a marijuana water bong. He asked Naughton to hold the steering wheel for him so he could take a hit off the bong. Naughton grabbed the steering wheel of the vehicle with his hand from his passenger seat position while the car was traveling at 50-55 miles an hour. During this time, control of the vehicle was lost and the vehicle crashed into the ditch. Reilly was severely injured.
Reilly and his parents (the Reillys) sued Anderson and his father (the Andersons); Naughton and his father, Richard Naughton, who owned some equipment that was unsecured in the cargo area of the Jeep when it crashed; and IMT Insurance Company (IMT), the Reillys' underinsured motorist insurance carrier. Richard Naughton obtained summary judgment as to his nonliability, and the case proceeded to trial against the remaining parties.
The jury returned a verdict finding Anderson sixty percent at fault, and Naughton and Reilly both twenty percent at fault. The jury found Reilly sustained $345,000 in damages, and his parents incurred $202,030.09 in damages.
All parties filed post-trial motions regarding the district court's entry of judgment. IMT, the Andersons, and the Reillys moved to enter judgment against Naughton and Anderson jointly and severally for the damages (reduced, of course, by Reilly's twenty percent fault). Naughton, on the other hand, moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. Naughton argued in his motion for JNOV there was no evidence he knew Anderson's conduct was negligent. In his alternative argument, Naughton made three claims for a new trial. First, there was no evidence he knew Anderson's conduct was negligent. Second, IMT was severed from trial and then rejoined as an interested party. Third, the court would violate Iowa Code section 668.3(5) (2005) by entering judgment against him and Anderson jointly.1 The Andersons also filed a motion for a new trial. They argued the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a joint-enterprise theory, and on Reilly's failure to mitigate damages. Finally, IMT filed a conditional motion for new trial, arguing the court erred in failing to submit its requested instructions to the jury.
The district court denied all the motions. The court refused to enter a judgment holding Naughton and the Andersons jointly and severally liable, citing Iowa Code section 668.4.2 It reduced Reilly's and his parents' damages by twenty percent, entitling Reilly to $276,000 and his parents to $161,624.07. The court entered a judgment for Reilly against Naughton for twenty percent of Reilly's damages— $69,000 (plus $4,909.06 in prejudgment interest). The court entered a judgment for Reilly against the Andersons for sixty percent of Reilly's damages—$207,000 (plus $14,729 in prejudgment interest). Because Anderson was more than fifty percent at fault, the Andersons were jointly and severally liable for Reilly's judgment against Naughton. Additionally, the court entered a judgment for Reilly's parents against Naughton for twenty percent of the parents' damages—$40,406.02 (plus $3,606.91 in prejudgment interest). The court also entered a judgment for Reilly's parents against the Andersons for sixty percent of their damages—$121,218.05 (plus $10,820.72 in prejudgment interest). Moreover, the Andersons were jointly and severally liable on the Reillys' judgment against Naughton. Thus, the judgment for the Reillys against Naughton totaled $117,921.99, and the judgment for the Reillys against the Andersons totaled $353,767.77. The Andersons only had $250,000 in insurance coverage, so they were underinsured by $103,767.77. However, the Reillys had $100,000 in UIM coverage from IMT, so the court entered a judgment against IMT to pay the Reillys $100,000.
The Andersons and IMT appealed, and Naughton and the Reillys cross-appealed. The Andersons and IMT argue the case should be remanded with instructions to enter judgment jointly and severally against the Andersons and Naughton. In the alternative, they argue for a new trial, claiming the court failed to properly instruct the jury on an acting-in-concert or joint enterprise theory. In his cross-appeal, Naughton claims the court should have directed a verdict for him because there was no evidence to suggest Naughton was guilty of aiding and abetting. In addition, Naughton argues jury instruction No. 20 did not accurately state the law, and if it did, there was insufficient evidence to find him negligent under the court's instructions. The Reillys join the appellants Anderson and IMT in their arguments, and add in their cross-appeal that we should further modify the district court's order by eliminating Reilly's twenty-percent assignment of fault because it was not supported by substantial evidence.
Because the court's decision was based on the interpretation of a statute, we review the court's refusal to enter judgment against the Andersons and Naughton jointly and severally for correction of errors at law. See In re Detention of Cubbage, 671 N.W.2d 442, 444 (Iowa 2003) . Similarly, "[o]ur scope of review on objections to [jury] instructions is on assigned error." State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 1997).
Naughton first argues error was not preserved on this issue because IMT and Anderson failed to object to jury instruction No. 24. That instruction read, "If you assign to a Defendant less than fifty percent of the total fault, that Defendant will only be liable to the extent of the percentage of fault assigned by you." Naughton claims the appellants' argument in favor of joint and several liability is essentially an argument against instruction No. 24 because Naughton was not found fifty percent or more at fault. Therefore, Naughton claims this objection was not preserved for appeal because neither IMT nor Anderson objected to instruction No. 24. As such, Naughton argues, it became the "law of the case." State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1988) .
Even assuming the appellants' claim for joint and several liability is really an objection to instruction No. 24, we believe the appellants sufficiently objected to that instruction so that error was preserved and instruction No. 24 did not become "the law of the case." To properly preserve error, the appellants must have "specif[ied] the subject and grounds of the objection." Maghee, 573 N.W.2d at 8 (citing State v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Iowa 1995)). Furthermore, the "objection must [have] be[en] sufficiently specific to alert the district court to the basis for the complaint so that if there is error the court can correct it before submitting the case to the jury." Id. Otherwise, "[a] party's general objection to an instruction preserves nothing for review." Id.
It is true the Andersons and IMT did not specifically object to instruction No. 24. But they did object to instruction No. 20, and counsel for IMT made the following record at trial when the court heard the parties' objections to jury instructions:
I want to be sure that we are not agreeing to the fact that joint liability is not an issue in this cause by our objections to the instructions because I think that the way the court has submitted this issue, that in post-trial motions we will still be able to identify that and can correct it. And I just don't want anything that we're saying about the instructions to preclude a post-trial motion.
And what I mean is that if they would find Anderson 40 percent at fault and Naughton 30 percent at fault, the only— if the doctrine of joint liability would apply, under the instructions that have been given a post-trial motion could be made where the court would make them jointly and severally liable for that combined fault. And I want to make sure that that issue is preserved by the objections that we've made to these instructions.
Counsel for the Reillys and the Andersons joined in these remarks. We believe this is "sufficiently specific to alert the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFarland v. McFarland
...of civil conspiracy. See Wright, 652 N.W.2d at 171-72; Ezzone v. Riccardi, 525 N.W.2d 388, 398 (Iowa 1994); see also Reilly v. Anderson, 727 N.W.2d 102, 108 n. 4 (Iowa 2006) (noting that the Iowa Supreme Court had "cited with approval section 876" many times). Section 876 provides that "for......
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Loudermilk
...333, 337 (1998) ("[I]t is legally impossible to apportion liability among tortfeasors who act in concert."). But see Reilly v. Anderson , 727 N.W.2d 102, 110-111 (Iowa 2006) (disagreeing that apportionment of fault among concerted actors is factually or legally impossible, but "creat[ing] a......
-
Cooley v. Lincoln Electric Co.
...N.W.2d at 65 (citing Larsen, 300 N.W.2d at 283); McClure, 613 N.W.2d at 230; Scoggins, 560 N.W.2d at 566. FN295. See Reilly v. Anderson, 727 N.W.2d 102, 107 (Iowa 2006); Ezzone, 525 N.W.2d at 398. 296. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b) (1979). See In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig.......
-
Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co.
...liable for the same indivisible injury."18 ¶ 83 Fifth, my interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 895.045(2) also comports with Reilly v. Anderson, 727 N.W.2d 102 (Iowa 2006), in which the Iowa Supreme Court had to decide whether the theory of concerted action is compatible with statutory comparativ......