Richards v. Anderson Erickson Dairy Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-0644.,04-0644. |
| Citation | 699 N.W.2d 676 |
| Parties | Lorraine RICHARDS and Ward Richards, Appellants, v. ANDERSON ERICKSON DAIRY CO., Gary Link, Kellie Barney and Mary Barney, Appellees. Anderson Erickson Dairy Co. and Gary Link, Appellees, v. Estate of Sarah Dahlke, Connie Dahlke, Rodney Naber, Charles Funke, Henry Brunsman, Lavern Willenborg, Brian Buhrow and Janet Buhrow, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
David P. McManus of Glasson, Sole, McManus & Pearson, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellants.
Richard S. Fry and Heather L. Fleming of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees Anderson Erickson and Link.
Scott E. McLeod and Todd Slagter of Lynch Dallas, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees Dahlke.
Natalie Burris of Swisher & Cohrt, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellees Naber and Funke.
Matthew Petrzelka of Simmons, Perrine, Albright & Ellwood, Cedar Rapids, for appellees Barney.
James P. Craig of Moyer & Bergman, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellees Brunsman and Willenborg.
Iowa City must be a special place. The plaintiffs in this personal-injury action filed suit in Johnson County, notwithstanding the fact that it hardly had any connection to the case. The district court granted the defendants' motion for a change of venue. The plaintiffs lost their trial and now appeal the venue change. Because we agree venue was not proper in Johnson County, we affirm.
This appeal stems from a chain-reaction collision on a highway in Grundy County in early 2001. The accident involved a semi-truck owned by the Anderson Erickson Dairy Company ("AE"). Lorraine and Ward Richards suffered injuries in the accident and sued AE for negligence. They also sued Gary Link, the AE employee driving the semi-truck, and Kellie and Mary Barney, the operator and the owner of another car involved in the accident.
The Richards filed their lawsuit in Johnson County, even though none of the parties resided there. The Richards are residents of Grundy County; Link is a resident of Story County; the Barneys are residents of Polk County; and AE is an Iowa corporation whose principal place of business is in Polk County. Although the motivation for filing in Johnson County remains unknown,1 the Richards claimed venue was proper there because AE regularly drove its trucks through Johnson County.
Before filing an answer, AE and Link moved for a change of venue.2 See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.808(1). They sought to have the trial moved to Grundy County, where the accident occurred. The district court granted the motion.
At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants. The Richards filed a motion for a new trial. They argued the district court should not have transferred the case to Grundy County. The district court denied the motion, and the Richards appealed.3
Roling v. Daily, 596 N.W.2d 72, 76 (Iowa 1999). The parties disagree about what standard of review should be applied. The disagreement stems from the fact that some motions for a change of venue require the district court to exercise its discretion, whereas others do not.
For example, Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.801(3) permits the district court to change the venue of a trial if the inhabitants of the county are prejudiced against the moving party. In a number of appeals concerning this and similar rules, we have reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Peters ex rel. Peters v. Vander Kooi, 494 N.W.2d 708, 711 (Iowa 1993) (); see also State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720, 726 (Iowa 2003) (). In the case at bar, however, we are asked to assess the district court's grant of a motion for change of venue pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.808. Unlike rule 1.801, rule 1.808 requires the district court to move the case to another county if it was brought in the wrong county. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.808(1) (). To determine whether or not the plaintiff filed suit in an improper place, the court only makes a legal determination based upon the venue provisions of Iowa Code chapter 616. Slattery v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 442 N.W.2d 82, 84-85 (Iowa 1989). Rule 1.808 does not implicate the discretionary judgment of the district court. Id. Therefore our review in this case is for errors at law, not an abuse of discretion.
The primary issue is whether venue was proper in Johnson County. If venue was proper there, we assume the district court lacked authority to transfer the case elsewhere; when venue is proper in multiple counties, the plaintiff may choose where to file and the district court lacks the discretion to transfer the case pursuant to rule 1.808. See id.4 If venue was not proper in Johnson County, we must decide whether it was proper in Grundy County. Id.
To answer the foregoing questions, we must apply the various provisions of Iowa Code chapter 616. Id. We first analyze Iowa Code section 616.17, our general venue statute. We then consider two specific venue provisions, which the parties variously claim have applicability in this case.
In Iowa, there is a long-standing preference for trying cases in the county of a defendants residence. Tull v. Honda Research Dev., Ltd., 469 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Iowa 1991) (). Today this preference is found in Iowa Code section 616.17, our general venue statute. See id. That statute provides:
Personal actions, except as otherwise provided, must be brought in a county in which some of the defendants actually reside, but if neither of them have a residence in the state, they may be sued in any county in which either of them may be found.
Iowa Code § 616.17 (2001). Although renumbered several times over the years, the substance of the statute has remained unchanged for over a century. Compare Iowa Code § 2586 (1873), with Iowa Code § 616.17 (2001). Clearly, the present personal-injury lawsuit is a "personal action" for purposes of the statute. See, e.g., Tull, 469 N.W.2d at 686 (); Baker v. Ryan, 67 Iowa 708, 710, 25 N.W. 890, 890 (1885) (). Here venue was proper in both Story and Polk counties because at least one defendant resided in each locale. Iowa Code § 616.17.
Having applied the general venue statute to the facts of this case, we now turn to examine two specific venue provisions the parties have brought to our attention, Iowa Code sections 616.18 and 616.8. We must determine whether they fit within the "except as otherwise provided" proviso in the general venue statute and also make venue proper in other counties. Id.; see, e.g., Tull, 469 N.W.2d at 686.
In 1941, the legislature enacted a law permitting plaintiffs in motor vehicle accidents to sue in the county in which the injury was sustained. 1941 Iowa Acts ch. 298, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 616.18 (1946)). In 1972, the legislature broadened this special venue provision to plaintiffs in all personal-injury lawsuits. 1972 Iowa Acts ch. 1127, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 616.18 (1973)). We subsequently held Iowa Code section 616.18 falls within the "except as otherwise provided" proviso of Iowa Code section 616.17. Tull, 469 N.W.2d at 686. For this reason, the defendants are correct when they assert that venue in this case was not only proper in Polk and Story counties, the residences of various defendants, but also proper in Grundy County, the scene of the collision. Iowa Code § 616.18 (Iowa 2001); see also Becker v. Wright, 540 N.W.2d 250, 253 (Iowa 1995) ().
To show venue was proper in Johnson County, the plaintiffs cite another special venue statute, Iowa Code section 616.8. Like our general venue statute, section 616.8, known as our common carrier statute, has also remained virtually unchanged for over a century. Compare Iowa Code § 2582 (1873), with Iowa Code § 616.8 (2001). It provides:
An action may be brought against any railway corporation, the owner of stages, or other line of coaches or cars, express, canal, steamboat and other river crafts, telegraph and telephone companies . . . in any county through which such road or line passes or is operated.
Iowa Code § 616.8. Although not expressly mentioned, we have held that semi-trucks carrying freight on a fixed schedule over a regular route with fixed termini constitute a "line of . . . cars" for purposes of the statute. Bruce Transfer Co. v. Johnston, 227 Iowa 50, 52-55, 287 N.W. 278, 278-81 (1939) ().
The Richards contend section 616.8, like section 616.18, falls within the "except as otherwise provided" language of section 616.17 and thereby authorized venue in Johnson County. Prior precedent holds otherwise. We were presented with similar facts and identical statutes in 1926 and held our common carrier statute did not fall within the exception to the general venue statute. For this reason, today we hold venue was not proper in Johnson County and affirm the district court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cpt v. John Deere Health Care
...review of a district court's ruling on a motion for new trial depends on the grounds raised in the motion.'" Richards v. Anderson Erickson Dairy Co., 699 N.W.2d 676, 678 (Iowa 2005) (quoting Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 859 (Iowa 2001)). If the motion for a new tria......
-
Jones v. Glenwood Golf Corp.
...Physical Therapy Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc. , 714 N.W.2d 603, 609 (Iowa 2006) (quoting Richards v. Anderson Erickson Dairy Co. , 699 N.W.2d 676, 678 (Iowa 2005) ).III. Analysis.The fighting issue on appeal is whether the district court correctly ruled that the plaintiffs c......
-
Winger v. CM Holdings, L.L.C.
...Physical Therapy Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc., 714 N.W.2d 603, 609 (Iowa 2006) (quoting Richards v. Anderson Erickson Dairy Co., 699 N.W.2d 676, 678 (Iowa 2005) ). The question of whether a duty exists is a question of law reviewed for correction of errors at law. See id. (“......
-
Root v. Toney
...district court's ruling on the legal requirements for venue for correction of errors at law. See Richards v. Anderson Erickson Dairy Co., 699 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 2005); see also Froman v. Keokuk Health Sys., Inc., 755 N.W.2d 528, 529 (Iowa 2008) (reviewing interpretation of venue statute ......