Anissa Gerard v. City of North Liberty, Iowa and Mitchell Seymour, Individually and as Police Officer for City of North Liberty
16-1885
Iowa Ct. App.Aug 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anissa Gerard was arrested by North Liberty police, handcuffed with hands behind her back, and acted belligerently while in custody.
- While officers were moving her inside the police station, Gerard missed a step and fell, sustaining injury.
- Gerard sued the City of North Liberty and Officer Mitchell Seymour for negligence, alleging failure to warn of the step and failure to protect her from falling.
- At trial the district court refused Gerard’s proposed jury instruction that defendants owed a heightened or "special" duty beyond ordinary care because she was in custody; it instead gave a standard ordinary-care instruction plus an instruction stating officers have a duty of ordinary care to aid and protect persons in their custody.
- A jury returned a verdict for the defendants; the district court denied Gerard’s new-trial motion. Gerard appealed, challenging the omitted special-duty instruction and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a heightened or "special" duty of care applies to officers who take custody of a person and restrain them (beyond ordinary care) | Gerard: officers owed a special/higher duty to aid/protect because her handcuffs deprived her normal self-protection | Defendants: custody creates a duty to exercise ordinary/reasonable care under the circumstances, not a heightened standard | Court: No heightened duty; custody imposes a duty to exercise ordinary/reasonable care (instruction refusal not error) |
| Whether the jury verdict for defendants was supported by substantial evidence | Gerard: failure to warn of the step was undisputed and thus constituted negligence as a matter of law, so no reasonable jury could find for defendants | Defendants: failure-to-warn was one specification, but whether that violated the ordinary-care duty was disputed; credibility and circumstances supported verdict | Court: Sufficient evidence supported the jury — jury could credit Seymour’s account and conclude his conduct did not breach the ordinary duty of care |
Key Cases Cited
- Hildenbrand v. Cox, 369 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa 1985) (custody can create a special relationship but duty remains reasonable care under circumstances)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (lack of due care is not a constitutional deprivation; distinguishes negligence from constitutional claims)
- Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for jury instruction error)
- Seeman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 322 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1982) (negligence defined as conduct below standard established by law for protection of others)
- Smith v. Miller, 40 N.W.2d 597 (Iowa 1950) (sheriff owes ordinary and reasonable care to arrested persons)
- Winger v. CM Holdings, L.L.C., 881 N.W.2d 433 (Iowa 2016) (distinguishing negligence per se from evidence of negligence)
- Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dep’t, 321 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (federal decision discussing Iowa law that detainees are owed a common-law duty of care)