Kathryn Marie Breese and E.B., born in 2005, a minor child, by and through her mother and next friend Kathryn Marie Breese v. City of Burlington, 945 N.W.2d 12

On Aug. 30, 2015, Kathryn Breese and her 9-year-old daughter rode bicycles in Dankwardt Park (Burlington, IA) and continued onto a sewer box that was flush with the park pathway and gave the appearance of part of the trail.
The sewer box section rose to about ten feet above ground, had low-hanging branches, and lacked guardrails or warning signs; while attempting to turn, Breese struck a branch and fell ~10 feet, suffering serious injuries.
Plaintiffs sued the City of Burlington for negligence (failure to install guardrails, to warn that the sewer box was not part of the trail, and to warn about hazardous heights/no safe turnaround), and alleged emotional injury to the child.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City based on (1) the public-duty doctrine and (2) the state-of-the-art statutory defense (Iowa Code §670.4(1)(h)).
The Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded: it held the public-duty doctrine does not shield the City from its alleged affirmative negligent acts in connecting the sewer box to the trail; and found a genuine factual dispute whether the City met applicable safety standards when it connected the path to the sewer box (allegedly between 1980–1992).
The court clarified the burden going forward: the municipality invoking the state-of-the-art defense must plead and prove it; on remand the City will bear that burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of the public-duty doctrine	Breese: Doctrine does not bar claims because City affirmatively connected the trail to the sewer box (misfeasance) and acted negligently	City: Duty was a safety-related public duty owed to the public at large; doctrine bars individual claims	Court: Public-duty doctrine does not apply to affirmative negligent acts causing harm; summary judgment on that ground reversed
State-of-the-art immunity under Iowa Code §670.4(1)(h)	Breese: City altered/connected the sewer box to the trail (1980–1992), so the City had to meet safety standards in effect then; plaintiffs’ expert raised standards requiring edge protection/shoulders	City: Sewer box dates to ~1930 and remained a sewer; plaintiffs have not shown the City violated the (1930) standards; thus immunity applies	Court: Genuine issue of material fact exists whether the City met standards when it connected the path (1980–1992); district court erred. Also places burden on municipality to plead and prove state-of-the-art defense going forward

Johnson v. Humboldt County, 913 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 2018) (public-duty doctrine applies to duties owed to the public at large; distinguished omissions from affirmative acts)
Estate of McFarlin v. State, 881 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa 2016) (public-duty doctrine bars claims involving safety-related duties owed to general public)
Kolbe v. State, 625 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 2001) (public-duty doctrine coexists with IMTCA; duty to public generally not actionable by individuals)
Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2006) (public-duty doctrine inapplicable where municipality owed duty to invitees on municipal property)
Raas v. State, 729 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2007) (public-duty doctrine applied to some claims but not where a special relationship to the state existed)
Kellogg v. City of Albia, 908 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 2018) (explains purposes of state-of-the-art defense under §670.4(1)(h))
Connolly v. Dallas County, 465 N.W.2d 875 (Iowa 1991) (prior treatment of plaintiff’s burden on state-of-the-art; court rejects that allocation and places burden on defendant)