Estate of David Paul McFarlin by Its Personal Representative, Jamie Laass Jamie Laass, Individually And Jamie Laass, as Parent and Next Friend of S.L. v. State of Iowa
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 74
Iowa2016Background
- A ten-year-old boy (D.M.) died when a speedboat struck a submerged dredge pipe on Storm Lake; the boat’s propeller flipped into the passenger compartment and fatally struck D.M.
- Storm Lake is state-owned (public trust); dredging was authorized and regulated by the DNR/NRC but operated day-to-day by local entities (Lakeside Improvement Commission, City of Storm Lake); local operators placed and maintained the danger buoys marking the pipe.
- Plaintiffs settled with the boat operator, dredge operators, and other private defendants and then sued the State of Iowa/DNR alleging regulatory and common-law negligence (failure to require/ensure adequate marking, warnings, or speed limits; breach of dredging statutes).
- The State moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds (no private statutory cause of action, public-duty doctrine, statutory sovereign-immunity defenses, recreational-use immunity, discretionary-function immunity); the district court granted summary judgment and the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately affirmed on the first two grounds.
- The Court held Iowa Code chapters 461A and 462A do not imply a private right to sue and that the public-duty doctrine bars plaintiffs’ common-law tort claims against the State because the State’s duties were owed to the public at large rather than to a particularized class of lake users.
- Because those two holdings disposed of the appeal, the Court did not reach the State’s other immunity defenses; three justices concurred/dissented in part arguing the public-duty doctrine should not apply and discretionary-function immunity did not shield the State for the regulatory/oversight choices at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa Code chs. 461A & 462A create an implied private right of action | Statutes regulating dredging/boater safety create an implied private remedy for injured boaters | Statutes are regulatory, contain no clear legislative intent to create a private remedy | No implied private right of action under chapters 461A/462A; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the State owed an enforceable common-law duty to the plaintiffs (vs. a duty to the public at large) | Boaters on Storm Lake form a special, identifiable class (like invitees at a golf course) so public-duty doctrine should not bar the claim | Duties were regulatory/policing duties owed to the public generally; public-duty doctrine precludes individual recovery | Public-duty doctrine applies; State’s duties were owed to the public at large and no special relationship existed; common-law claims barred |
| Whether public-trust/state ownership of the lake creates a nondelegable duty or special duty to individual boaters | State ownership and permitting authority over dredging creates an affirmative, enforceable duty to those using the lake | Ownership/police/regulatory duties are circumscribed by public trust and are regulatory—liability follows control; local operators controlled dredge operations | Ownership did not create a special, individual duty here; control and day-to-day responsibility rested with local operators; public-duty rule applies |
| Whether to reach other immunity defenses (recreational-use, discretionary-function, sovereign immunity) | Plaintiffs argued those defenses do not apply or are inapplicable given State’s role | State invoked multiple statutory immunity defenses | Court did not reach these issues because dismissal was resolved by lack of private cause of action and the public-duty doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolbe v. State, 625 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 2001) (applies the public-duty doctrine; absence of a special relationship bars individual recovery)
- Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2006) (distinguishes public-duty doctrine where duty owed to invitees at municipal golf course)
- Raas v. State, 729 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2007) (reaffirms continued viability of public-duty doctrine post-ITCA)
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (adopts portions of Restatement (Third) of Torts and frames modern duty analysis)
- Wilson v. Nepstad, 282 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa 1979) (discusses duty creation and the limits of public-duty rule)
- Ravenscroft v. Washington Water Power Co., 969 P.2d 75 (Wash. 1998) (applies public-duty doctrine in a recreational boating accident context)
- Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012) (explains when statutes create an implied private cause of action)