Karen Rochford and Jude Rochford v. G.K. Development, Inc.
845 N.W.2d 715
Iowa Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Karen and Jude Rochford sued G.K. Development, owner of College Square Mall, for injuries Karen suffered after a fall on an icy sidewalk outside the mall.
- The district court granted summary judgment to G.K. Development, concluding the weather event could be treated under the continuing storm doctrine and that action before the storm’s end was not required.
- Plaintiffs argued the weather did not constitute a storm and that ice melt outside the entrance showed it was feasible to deice during the weather event.
- Evidence showed cold, drizzly conditions transitioning to freezing rain around the time of the fall, with freezing rain continuing for several hours and the sidewalk icing over.
- The court affirmed summary judgment, applying the continuing storm doctrine and rejecting questions of material fact as to whether the weather constituted a storm requiring immediate action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the weather event qualifies as a storm for continuing-storm doctrine | Rochford argues the event did not meet the storm threshold | G.K. Development contends the weather was a continuing storm justifying delay in deicing | Yes; the weather event was a continuing storm under the doctrine. |
| Whether there was a factual question about timing of the storm’s end | Fact issues exist on when the storm ended and whether deicing was practical | The district court properly treated the event as ongoing until its end | No factual question; the court treated the event as ongoing to permit summary judgment. |
| Whether the presence of ice melt outside the entrance negates conclusion | Ice melt evidence shows deicing was feasible during the event | Feasibility evidence does not defeat the continuing-storm doctrine | Irrelevant to the application of the continuing-storm doctrine for this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reuter v. Iowa Trust & Savings Bank, 57 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa 1953) (approves continuing storm/slow-remediation doctrine (trial court upheld directed verdict))
- Walker v. Mem’l Hosp., 45 S.E.2d 898 (Va. 1948) (Virginia adoption of continuing storm rationale)
- Parson v. H.L. Green Co., 10 N.W.2d 40 (Iowa 1943) (early support for not immediately removing snow/debris during a storm)
- Hovden v. City of Decorah, 155 N.W.2d 534 (Iowa 1968) (reaffirmed continuing-storm approach; no jury question if storm ongoing)
- Hopping v. College Block Partners, 599 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa 1999) (noting statutory change and continuing-storm considerations)
- Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635 (Iowa 2009) (adopted multifactor duty standard for invitees/licensees)
- Amos v. NationsBank, N.A., 504 S.E.2d 365 (Va. 1998) (continued storm applicability for limited or moderate inclement weather)