Kathryn Winger and Timothy Potts v. Cm Holdings, L.L.C.
881 N.W.2d 433
Iowa2016Background
- Shannon Potts fell to her death from a second-floor apartment balcony protected by 32" iron railings originally installed in 1968; current Des Moines code requires 42" railings.
- A city inspector cited the landlord (CM Holdings) in 2011, concluding attached plastic lattice altered the railings and eliminated grandfather status.
- CM Holdings did not appeal the citation; the Housing Appeals Board (HAB) found a violation, suspended a $1,090 fine, and granted an extension to install 42" railings. Potts died three days after the HAB meeting.
- Plaintiffs sued for wrongful death, arguing the 42" requirement applied and violation constituted negligence per se; plaintiffs’ expert said a 42" guardrail would have prevented the fall.
- The district court instructed the jury that the court had determined violation of the 42" requirement constituted negligence per se; jury returned verdict for plaintiffs. Posttrial, the court granted a new trial, concluding the ordinance did not support negligence per se. The Iowa Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of a municipal housing ordinance can be negligence per se | Municipal safety ordinances with specific standards can establish negligence per se | Negligence per se should be limited to statewide statutes/regulations | City ordinances can form the basis for negligence per se when they set a specific safety standard (Griglione overruled on this point) |
| Whether the HAB finding of a code violation is preclusive in the tort suit (issue preclusion) | HAB determination binds CM Holdings and precludes relitigation | HAB decision is not preclusive because CM Holdings lacked incentive to litigate and proceeding was informal | HAB finding is not preclusive; offensive issue preclusion denied because CM Holdings had little incentive to appeal the HAB order |
| Whether the HAB extension of time relieved CM Holdings of tort liability (legal excuse) | Extension showed city approval, excusing interim liability | Extension only suspended administrative enforcement, not tort liability | Extension did not excuse tort liability; legal-excuse doctrine does not apply here |
| Whether the grandfather clause applied as a matter of law | 32" railings were grandfathered and compliant with prior code | Grandfathering was lost by alteration (lattice); whether it applies is fact-dependent | Grandfather status is a mixed question of law and fact; neither side entitled to directed verdict — remand for retrial on this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Griglione v. Martin, 525 N.W.2d 810 (Iowa 1994) (addressed whether internal police procedures/support statewide-rule language — court limits and later overrules its dicta limiting negligence per se to statewide rules)
- Montgomery v. Engle, 179 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 1970) (held analysis whether ordinance is negligence per se depends on statute’s purpose and protected class; partially overruled here)
- Koll v. Manatt’s Transp. Co., 253 N.W.2d 265 (Iowa 1977) (violation of OSHA/IOSHA standards may be negligence per se as to employees)
- Wiersgalla v. Garrett, 486 N.W.2d 290 (Iowa 1992) (articulates standard: statute must protect the plaintiff’s class and the harm must be the kind the statute was intended to prevent)
- Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Van Haaften, 815 N.W.2d 17 (Iowa 2012) (sets elements and limits of issue preclusion; discusses offensive preclusion considerations)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (federal precedent explaining limits on offensive collateral estoppel when prior suit involved small stakes and low incentive to litigate)