Casey Mcgill Ginger L. Mcgill Ashlea D. Mcgill And Casey Mcgill, As Parent And Next Best Friend Of Amanda R. Mcgill, Alicia C. Mcgill, And Allison C. Mcgill, Minors Vs. Ben Fish, Thomas Vine, Mark Newton, Robert Selby, And Steven Shaffer
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 105
| Iowa | 2010Background
- Casey McGill, a University of Iowa employee, sued for personal injuries from maintenance work at the plant and joined his wife and children as plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs asserted a gross negligence claim against five University coemployees who allegedly failed to train and equip McGill.
- The State moved to dismiss, contending the gross negligence claim against coemployees is a State ITCA claim requiring administrative exhaustion.
- McGills argued the claim falls under Iowa Code § 85.20(2) and § 669.14(5), exempting it from ITCA and aligning with workers’ compensation, and raised equal protection concerns.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss; the State sought interlocutory review, which this Court granted.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, requiring dismissal of the claims against the state employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coemployee gross negligence claims are ITCA-exhausted or exempt under 669.14(5) and 85.20 | McGills: claim is exempt under 85.20(2) and not subject to ITCA. | State: ITCA exhaustion applies; claims against coemployees are within ITCA. | Not exempt; ITCA applies; dismissal required. |
| Whether the Equal Protection Clause bars application of 669.14(5) to exclude or include coemployee gross negligence | Exclusion would bar state workers from suit against coemployees in some circumstances. | No constitutional violation; no meaningful equal protection issue given the statute’s text. | No equal protection violation; statute construed consistently. |
| What is the proper interpretation of 'covered' in 669.14(5) regarding workers’ compensation exclusion | Coemployee gross negligence claims are covered by workers’ compensation, exempt from ITCA. | The term 'covered' means included by workers’ compensation; coemployee gross negligence is not covered. | Plain meaning: 'covered' means covered by workers’ compensation; coemployee gross negligence not covered; ITCA applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Mlakar, 489 N.W.2d 401 (Iowa 1992) (section 85.20 does not create a separate gross negligence cause of action)
- Unertl v. Bezanson, 414 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1987) (gross negligence is a measure of conduct, not a distinct action)
- Engstrom v. State, 461 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1990) (ITCA recognized a remedy for existing causes of action; not creating new ones)
- Swanger v. State, 445 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa 1989) (ITCA procedures are jurisdictional and exhaustions are required)
- Feltes v. State, 385 N.W.2d 544 (Iowa 1986) (sovereign immunity and ITCA interaction principles)
- State v. Wiederien, 709 N.W.2d 538 (Iowa 2006) (statutory construction framework for ambiguous provisions)
- State v. Lane, 743 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa 2007) (dictionary-based approach to term meaning in statutes)