Derek Crow v. Edwin E. Simpson, Individually and D/B/A Simpson Trucking and Excavating
871 N.W.2d 98
Iowa2015Background
- On August 29–30, 2008 Simpson (an excavator) left a yellow front-end loader parked in the travel lane after connecting sewer lines; he placed cones around the freshly poured mortar but did not place barricades or flashing lights behind the loader, though a reflective slow-moving-vehicle placard was affixed to the loader.
- Derek Crow, riding a moped at night with a left-arm cast, collided with the loader, suffered a severe head injury (acute epidural hematoma), and underwent emergency neurosurgery.
- Crow sued Simpson alleging negligence in leaving the loader in the road caused his injuries; at trial the jury found Simpson negligent but answered that Simpson’s negligence did not cause any of Crow’s damages.
- Competing expert testimony: Crow’s expert (Knight) opined Crow could not avoid the loader given reaction time and conditions; Simpson’s experts (McMahon and Hall) performed tests and concluded Crow could have stopped or avoided the loader and that the moped slid rather than struck the loader.
- The district court denied Crow’s posttrial motions; the court of appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support the verdict and ordered a new trial. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
- The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals, affirmed the district court judgment, holding substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of no causation, the interrogatory answers were consistent, directed-verdict error (if any) was harmless, and the district court did not abuse its discretion on new-trial grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports verdict that Simpson’s negligence did not cause Crow’s damages | Crow: evidence and expert testimony show loader caused crash and injuries; verdict not supported | Simpson: expert testing showed Crow could have seen/avoided loader; jury could find Crow’s conduct sole cause | Held: Substantial evidence supports verdict for no causation (jury could credit Simpson’s experts) |
| Whether jury answers (negligence yes; causation no) were inconsistent | Crow: inconsistent and irreconcilable answers | Simpson: answers can be harmonized (fault without causation) | Held: Answers consistent and harmonizable under instructions/evidence |
| Whether district court erred denying directed verdict on negligence per se | Crow: court should have directed verdict on negligence | Simpson: jury already found negligence; any error harmless | Held: If error existed, it was harmless because jury found Simpson negligent |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing new trial for failure to administer substantial justice | Crow: verdict failed to compensate despite causal proof | Simpson: evidence amply supports jury verdict; no abuse | Held: No abuse of discretion; district court did not err refusing new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Blauvelt, 818 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477 (Iowa 2011) (directed-verdict review standard)
- Clinton Physical Therapy Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc., 714 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa 2006) (test for harmonizing allegedly inconsistent verdict answers)
- Lehigh Clay Prods., Ltd. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 512 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 1994) (trial court’s discretion to grant new trial when verdict fails to administer substantial justice)
- Eventide Lutheran Home for the Aged v. Smithson Elec. & Gen. Constr., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 1989) (jury may accept or reject expert testimony)
- Easton v. Howard, 751 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2008) (plaintiff bears burden to prove negligence and causation by preponderance)