Leonard Jack v. P and A Farms, LTD., D/B/A Crooked Creek Shooting Preserve
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 100
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Leonard Jack, Crooked Creek Shooting Preserve employee, sustained a shoulder injury in December 2005 at Crooked Creek’s facilities.
- Jack sued in May 2007 for medical expenses and to assert workers’ compensation coverage presumptions under Iowa Code 87.21.
- Trial dates were repeatedly continued from 2008 through 2011 due to attorney changes and scheduling conflicts.
- On May 3, 2011, Jack failed to personally appear for trial; his counsel appeared and moved to proceed or continue.
- District court dismissed default under rule 1.971(3) after denying a continuance; Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court, and remanded for trial, holding 1.971(3) does not require personal appearance when counsel is present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1.971(3) default is proper when party absent but counsel can proceed | Jack argues counsel can proceed on his behalf and admissions and 87.21 presumptions support liability. | Crooked Creek contends personal appearance is required for default under 1.971(3). | Default judgment not required; counsel may proceed; reversal and remand warranted. |
| Whether Crooked Creek was deprived of cross-examination due to Jack’s absence | Cross-examination should be possible or evidence substituteable via admissions. | Cross-examination is essential to rebut, and absence prevented it. | Cross-examination issue did not mandate default; proceedings could proceed with alternatives; not fatal to trial. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying continuance | Continuance should be granted to accommodate absence-related difficulties. | Continuance denial was within district court’s wide discretion given history of delay. | No abuse in denying seventh continuance; however, dismissal on 1.971(3) was error for requiring personal presence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaux v. Hensal, 224 Iowa 1055 (Iowa 1938) (default when neither party nor attorney appears; counsel may defend in absence)
- Myers v. Emke, 476 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1991) (presence not reasonably necessary; civil trial may proceed through counsel)
- Avery v. Harms Implement Co., 270 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 1978) (cross-examination is discretionary but essential to a fair trial; direct testimony required)
- Krugman v. Palmer College of Chiropractic, 422 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 1988) (default judgment when party and counsel fail to appear; context of trial)
- Heck v. Anderson, 234 Iowa 379 (Iowa 1944) (presence at trial not absolute; statutory policy favors merits-based resolution)