Brenda J. Alcala v. Marriott International, Inc. and Courtyard Management Corporation D/B/A Quad Cities Courtyard by Marriott
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 68
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Brenda Alcala, a business guest, slipped on an icy hotel sidewalk at the Courtyard by Marriott in Bettendorf on January 21, 2010, broke her ankle, and sued for negligence; jury awarded $1.2 million and apportioned 98% fault to Marriott.
- Trial evidence included competing weather records (nearby stations showing an ice event on Jan. 20 and mist into Jan. 21), lay witness testimony about slick conditions the morning of Jan. 21, and conflicting testimony about hotel snow/ice removal and frequency of deicer application.
- Plaintiff alleged multiple specifications of negligence: improper training of employees, inadequate maintenance/inspection, failure to warn, and failure to provide a slip‑resistant walkway; the jury returned a general verdict (did not identify which specification it relied on).
- Marriott requested a continuing‑storm instruction (allowing a landowner to await end of a storm and reasonable time thereafter to remove snow/ice); the district court refused it as unsupported by the evidence.
- District court gave an instruction allowing the jury to consider violations of ASTM and ANSI voluntary safety standards as evidence of negligence and submitted negligent‑training as a specification; on appeal the court of appeals ordered a new trial, and the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for refusal to give a requested jury instruction | No change needed; but dispute over whether abuse of discretion or error of law | Refusal should be reviewed for correction of errors at law | Court clarifies: refusal to give a nondiscretionary requested instruction is reviewed for correction of errors at law (not abuse of discretion) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to submit negligent‑training specification | Alcala: lay testimony and records create a jury question that training was inadequate (no expert required) | Marriott: no evidence of the applicable training standard or breach; expert required | Court: error to submit negligent‑training instruction — no evidence of the training standard or its breach; because verdict was general, new trial required |
| Jury instruction treating voluntary ASTM/ANSI standards as evidence of negligence | Alcala: standards are relevant and may be considered as evidence; district court properly instructed jury | Marriott: standards inapplicable (govern construction/materials, not snow/ice) and instruction unduly adopted plaintiff’s expert view | Court: district court erred by effectively adopting plaintiff’s view over conflicting expert testimony and instructing that an icy surface violated ASTM; prejudicial error requires new trial |
| Continuing‑storm doctrine instruction | Marriott: evidence (weather reports, testimony of ongoing mist/ice) warranted instruction that owner may await end of storm | Alcala: evidence insufficient to show storm was continuing at the time of the fall | Court: declines to decide applicability on this record (error elsewhere requires new trial); leaves doctrine for remand/briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Reuter v. Iowa Tr. & Sav. Bank, 244 Iowa 939 (Iowa 1953) (adopted continuing‑storm doctrine permitting occupier to await end of storm and reasonable time thereafter to remove snow/ice)
- Asher v. OB‑Gyn Specialists, P.C., 846 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 2014) (general verdict rule requiring new trial if one of multiple submitted specifications lacks evidentiary support)
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (adopted Restatement (Third) framework for duty analysis in negligence)
- Wailes v. Hy‑Vee, Inc., 861 N.W.2d 262 (Iowa Ct.App.2014) (example of court applying continuing‑storm instruction where snow was still falling)