Martha Duban v. Waverly Sales Co.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14274
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Waverly holds open-to-public draft horse auctions in a main sale arena with a north bleacher area for spectators and reserved seating available.
- During auctions, horses are moved through a northwest alley onto the arena floor and are later led out through the northeast alley; restrooms in the vicinity are reachable from the north bleachers only via these areas.
- Martha Duban left her reserved north-bleacher seat to use the restroom and returned through the northeast alley where horses were being led off the arena floor.
- An overhead door opened unexpectedly, causing horses to shy and approach the northeast alley where Martha was returning, and one horse stepped on her, causing severe injuries.
- Dubans sued Waverly for negligence alleging improper door operation, unsafe spectator exits, and a dangerous premises layout.
- The district court denied summary judgment and later denied verdict-directed motions; a jury found Waverly 65% at fault and awarded damages; Waverly appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 673.2(4) applies to defeat immunity as a matter of law. | Duban argues the northeast alley was designated for non-participants, triggering 673.2(4). | Waverly contends 673.2(4) does not apply; immunity remains. | Yes; 673.2(4) applies, making Waverly liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keup v. Hopkins, 596 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2010) (review of summary judgment-denial standards post-trial)
- EEOC v. Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P., 550 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for renewing summary judgment arguments)
- Estate of Blume v. Marian Health Ctr., 516 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2008) (preservation of non-sufficiency issues on appeal)
- Howard v. Mo. Bone & Joint Ctr., Inc., 615 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of JMOL and similar standards)
- Kaibel v. Mun. Bldg. Comm’n, 742 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2014) (statutory interpretation in federal review)
- Griffin Pipe Prods. Co. v. Guarino, 663 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2003) (contextual interpretation of statutory language)
- Hortica-Florists’ Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pittman Nursery Corp., 729 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2013) (interpretation of integrated statute and legislative intent)