Leline C. Wailes v. Hy-Vee, Inc. and Derek Webb, D/B/A Webb Snow Removal
2014 Iowa App. LEXIS 1218
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Leline Wailes slipped on a snow ridge in a Hy-Vee parking lot on Dec. 24 while snow was still falling and sued Hy-Vee and its contractor Derek Webb for negligence.
- Webb had been plowing the lot starting about 5:30 a.m.; plow-created ridges and remaining natural accumulation were present when Wailes left the store around 8:05 a.m.
- Hy-Vee and Webb moved in limine to exclude evidence about post-fall application of salt/sand and post-fall snow removal; the district court granted the motions but left the rulings open to change during trial.
- The jury found defendants not at fault; the district court entered judgment and denied Wailes’s motion for new trial.
- Wailes appealed, arguing (1) the district court abused its discretion by excluding post-fall mitigation evidence, and (2) the court erred in giving an instruction on the continuing-storm doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error for exclusion of post-fall salt/sand and post-fall snow removal evidence | Wailes: district court abused discretion in excluding that evidence | Hy-Vee/Webb: ruling was preserved or proper exclusion | Error not preserved — court’s in limine ruling was equivocal and Wailes did not offer the evidence at trial |
| Admissibility of evidence about post-fall remediation | Wailes: evidence was relevant to negligence and should be admitted | Defs: evidence properly excluded / irrelevant to liability | Not reached on merits due to preservation failure |
| Applicability of the continuing-storm doctrine instruction | Wailes: doctrine inapplicable because claim challenged manner of removal (not timing) and volunteers owe due care | Defs: doctrine bars liability for actions during a storm, even if partial removal occurred — public policy supports the instruction | Instruction proper — doctrine applied because Wailes also challenged timing of removal; no reversible error |
| Whether voluntary snow-removal that creates/exacerbates hazard defeats continuing-storm protection | Wailes: defendants created hazardous condition by manner of plowing | Defs: voluntary efforts should not be penalized and doctrine still protects them during storm | Court: continuing-storm doctrine permits liability if removal efforts create or worsen hazards, but here timing claim invoked doctrine; instruction still appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Clinton Physical Therapy Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc., 714 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa 2006) (standard for appellate review of denial of new-trial motion)
- Quad City Bank & Trust v. Jim Kircher & Assoc., P.C., 804 N.W.2d 83 (Iowa 2011) (motion in limine rulings generally are procedural and not reviewable unless unequivocal)
- State v. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2006) (waiver of motion-in-limine error unless preserved at trial or ruling is unequivocal)
- State v. Tangie, 616 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 2000) (unequivocal in limine ruling functions as an evidentiary ruling and preserves error)
- Reuter v. Iowa Trust & Sav. Bank, 57 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa 1953) (continuing-storm doctrine: no duty to remove natural accumulation until end of storm and a reasonable time thereafter)
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (duty arises where actor's conduct creates a risk of physical harm; adoption of Restatement (Third) § 7)
- Van Fossen v. MidAm. Energy Co., 777 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa 2009) (recognition of Restatement (Third) principles on duty)