Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 05-1407 Filed May 11, 2007 DAVID FELDERMAN, Executor of the Estate of MARY BELLE WESTPHAL, Deceased, Appellant, vs. CITY OF MAQUOKETA, IOWA, Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.

Appeal from a district court ruling directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Robert F. Wilson of Wilson, Matias, Hauser & Den Beste, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Michael C. Walker of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Davenport, for appellee.

2 WIGGINS, Justice. In this case we must decide if the district court was correct when it directed a verdict in favor of the City of Maquoketa in a personal injury action. Because the district court correctly directed the verdict in favor of the City, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the district court. On July 8, 2003, Mary Belle Westphal went to the Maquoketa Community Center to watch her great-grandson attend a swimming class. It was a rainy day, so the swimming class was held indoors at the center. Westphal walked up the center's front stairs. She reached the landing on the top of the stairs, but after pulling on the front door, she fell backward, flew through the air, and landed at the base of the stairs. No one witnessed Westphal's fall. Westphal suffered multiple elbow fractures, a fractured shoulder, a fractured hip, a fractured rib, and a gash in her head. She was in and out of the hospital and other care facilities from the time of the fall until May 2004 when she died. Westphal's estate brought a negligence action against the City. The estate's petition alleged the City was negligent in the design, construction, and maintenance of the center. The matter proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of the estate's case, the City moved for a directed verdict. The district court granted the motion finding there was insufficient evidence to create a jury question on the issue of liability. The estate appealed the directed verdict. We transferred the case to our court of appeals. The court of appeals upheld the district court's directed verdict with respect to the estate's negligent design and construction claims. However, the court of appeals determined the evidence generated a jury question on whether the City

3 negligently maintained the center's front entrance. The court of appeals remanded the case to the district court for a retrial. The City petitioned our court for further review and this court granted the petition. We review the district court's grant of a directed verdict for correction of errors at law. Determan v. Johnson, 613 N.W.2d 259, 261 (Iowa 2000). In doing so we take into consideration all reasonable inferences that could be fairly made by the jury and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Yates v. Iowa West Racing Ass'n, 721 N.W.2d 762, 768 (Iowa 2006). If there is substantial evidence in the record to support each element of a claim, the motion for directed verdict must be overruled. Id. Evidence is substantial when reasonable minds would accept the

evidence as adequate to reach the same findings. Id.; see also Determan, 613 N.W.2d at 261. "Our role, then, is to determine `whether the trial court correctly determined that there was insufficient evidence to submit the issue . . . to the jury.' " Determan, 613 N.W.2d at 261 (quoting Hasselman v. Hasselman, 596 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1999)). I. Negligent Design and Construction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate, the evidence establishes the center's front threshold, doors, landing, railings, and stairs had not been reconstructed since 1967 when the building was erected. The estate argues the City's answer to an interrogatory indicates in approximately 1992 the City replaced the outside exterior front doors and in approximately 1999 the City installed new latches on the outside doors. However, the estate never made this interrogatory answer a part of the record. Accordingly, we will not consider the answer in deciding this appeal.

4 The only evidence supporting a negligent design or construction theory came from the estate's expert. He testified the center's front landing, stairs, and railings failed to comply with certain provisions of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The ADA standards relied upon by the expert were revised as of July 1, 1994. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 36 app. A (1994). The Code provides a city is immune from liability for negligent design or construction of a public facility if the facility "was constructed or reconstructed in accordance with a generally recognized engineering or safety standard, criteria, or design theory in existence at the time of the construction or reconstruction." Iowa Code

Download DAVID FELDERMAN, Executor of the Estate of MARY BELLE WESTPHAL, Deceased vs. CIT

Iowa Law