Dennis H. Hagenow and Rosalee A. Hagenow v. Betty L. Schmidt
842 N.W.2d 661
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Betty Schmidt rear-ended Hagenow’s stopped pickup at a red light; weather and roads were clear.
- Schmidt, age 75, had left homonymous hemianopsia (left vision loss) due to a right occipital stroke; there was dispute whether stroke occurred before or after the accident.
- Dr. Bekavac testified stroke likely occurred before the accident; Friedgood testified stroke occurred in the emergency room after the accident.
- Schmidt disclosed the treating physician as an expert; Hagenows argued late disclosure/seasoned objections to Dr. Bekavac’s causation testimony.
- District court permitted Bekavac’s causation testimony; trial proceeded, Schmidt asserted sudden emergency/legal-excuse defense.
- Jury found Schmidt not negligent; Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for misworded instruction, prompting Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly admitted expert causation testimony | Hagenows claim Bekavac’s causation opinion was untimely; prejudice from late disclosure. | Bekavac’s testimony was disclosed timely; Hagenows had opportunity to depose and respond. | No abuse; district court acted within its discretion; Bekavac testimony admitted. |
| Whether the sudden emergency instruction was proper given evidence of a preexisting medical event | Sudden emergency instruction not supported where no immediate peril or decisional act by Schmidt. | Legal-excuse and sudden emergency doctrine apply to sudden incapacitation; instruction appropriate under evidence. | Instruction not prejudicial; submission of legal-excuse/sudden-emergency defenses upheld. |
| Whether the evidence supports submitting a legal-excuse or sudden-emergency defense | No competent medical proof Schmidt’s stroke preceded the accident; vision loss could not cause the collision. | A reasonable jury could find stroke caused vision loss leading to rear-end collision; experts agree on consequences of stroke. | Record supports submission of a legal-excuse/sudden-emergency defense. |
| Whether any error in the wording of the sudden-emergency instruction was harmless | Wording misdescribed emergency; could mislead or prejudice verdict. | Any error benefited Hagenows; no prejudice shown. | Error harmless; no retrial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Condon Auto Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Crick, 604 N.W.2d 587 (Iowa 1999) (standard for reviewing evidentiary and discovery rulings)
- Rowling v. Sims, 732 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 2007) (four categories of legal excuse; jury instruction scope)
- Weiss v. Bal, 501 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 1993) (sudden emergency doctrine defined; need for reasonable care under emergency)
- Foster v. Ankrum, 636 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 2001) (limits on sudden emergency instructions when a decisional act is possible)
- Vasconez v. Mills, 651 N.W.2d 48 (Iowa 2002) (definition of sudden emergency; context for instruction)
- Day v. McIlrath, 469 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 1991) (treating physicians and expert-disclosure standards)
- Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 686 N.W.2d 150 (Iowa 2004) (standards for evaluating requested instructions and admissibility)
- Thavenet v. Davis, 589 N.W.2d 233 (Iowa 1999) (instructional error analysis and harmless error standard)
- Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635 (Iowa 2009) (harmless-error and prejudice considerations in instructional rulings)
- Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Serv., Inc., 816 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2012) (discovery sanctions and balancing factors for late disclosures)