Estate of Mercedes Gottschalk by Coexecutors Richard Gottschalk and Rebecca Rassler v. Pomeroy Development, Inc. D/B/A Pomeroy Care Center v. State of Iowa, Third-Party on Review From the Iowa Court of Appeal
893 N.W.2d 579
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Mercedes Gottschalk was a resident of Pomeroy Care Center; William Cubbage, an adjudicated sexually violent predator (SVP) with dementia, was discharged from the State’s CCUSO program and committed to Pomeroy in November 2010.
- CCUSO clinicians had chronic concerns about Cubbage’s risk; CCUSO staff told Pomeroy staff they believed he posed little risk to elderly residents, while Pomeroy staff understood he was a sex offender.
- In August 2011 Cubbage sexually assaulted Gottschalk at Pomeroy; she later died and her estate sued Pomeroy and the State for negligence; Pomeroy brought an indemnity/third-party claim against the State.
- The State moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty after Cubbage’s unconditional discharge from CCUSO; the district court granted summary judgment for the State and dismissed the estate’s claims against the State.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and, on preserved issues, affirmed—holding the State owed no duty of care to Gottschalk or to Pomeroy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty not to release Cubbage into a "target-rich" environment | Estate: State had duty not to place a known dangerous SVP where vulnerable residents would be exposed | State: Issue not preserved; once court discharged Cubbage the State had no duty | Not considered on appeal (issue not preserved) |
| Duty to warn residents of Cubbage’s dangerous propensities | Estate: State had duty to warn vulnerable residents and assure safety protocols | State: No duty after unconditional discharge from CCUSO; courts (not State) made release decision | No duty as a matter of law; summary judgment for State affirmed |
| Duty to assure/inspect safety protocols at Pomeroy | Estate: State negligently failed to prepare/approve a safety plan or inspect Pomeroy | State: No statutory or common-law duty to supervise, plan, or inspect after discharge | No duty; summary judgment for State affirmed |
| Care center’s indemnity/third-party claim based on State misrepresentation or special relationship | Pomeroy: State misrepresented risk and owed duty under special-relationship principles | State: Any representations made while Cubbage in custody did not create a special relationship after court-ordered discharge; sovereign-immunity bar applies to misrepresentation claims | No special-relationship duty; summary judgment for State affirmed on preserved issues |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of Cubbage, 671 N.W.2d 442 (Iowa 2003) (background on Cubbage’s prior SVP adjudication)
- Minor v. State, 819 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 2012) (summary-judgment and duty principles involving the State)
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (adopting Restatement (Third) duty framework; duty analysis is a question of law)
- Leonard v. State, 491 N.W.2d 508 (Iowa 1992) (no duty to general public for negligent discharge of dangerous mental patient)
- Estate of McFarlin v. State, 881 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa 2016) (public-duty doctrine and limits on government tort liability)
- Binschus v. State, 380 P.3d 468 (Wash. 2016) (government owed no duty after unconditional release from custody)