Messerschmidt v. City of Sioux City

Summary

The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the City of Sioux City was not immune from liability for removing a barricade during the Big Parade before the area was clear, resulting in injuries caused by a drunken driver. The court rejected discretionary-function immunity under Iowa Code section 670.4(3) and third-party-causation immunity under section 670.4(10), and found that the city had not preserved its section 668.10(1) argument. The court also upheld the jury’s apportionment of eighty-five percent fault to the city and fifteen percent to the driver, affirming on both the appeal and cross-appeal.

Holdings

1. The City's decision to remove the barricade was not protected by discretionary-function immunity because, although the decision involved judgment or choice, it was an ad hoc operational decision rather than a policy-making decision involving social, economic, or political considerations.
2. The City failed to preserve its claim that Iowa Code section 668.10(1) barred assigning it a percentage of fault because the City did not raise the defense below and the trial court had no opportunity to rule on it.
3. Section 670.4(10) did not immunize the City because the City's removal of a barricade was not an action similar to the statute's enumerated examples of issuing permits, inspecting, or investigating.
4. Substantial evidence supported the jury's determination that the City was negligent, that its negligence was a proximate cause of Cheryl Messerschmidt's injuries, and that fault should be apportioned 85 percent to the City and 15 percent to the drunken driver.
5. The court did not decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the City to amend its answer after the close of the Messerschmidts' case because section 670.4(10) did not immunize the City and the issue was therefore unnecessary to the disposition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the City's decision to remove the temporary road barricade was protected by discretionary-function immunity under Iowa Code section 670.4(3).
2. Whether the City could assert immunity under Iowa Code section 668.10(1) for liability relating to a traffic-control device when the defense was not raised below.
3. Whether Iowa Code section 670.4(10), concerning damage caused by a third party or event not under municipal supervision or control, immunized the City from liability for removing the barricade.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury's apportionment of 85 percent fault to the City and 15 percent fault to the drunken driver.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the City to amend its answer after the close of the Messerschmidts' case in chief to add the section 670.4(10) defense.

Disposition

affirmed