Sanon v. City of Pella
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 73
| Iowa | 2015Background
- Two teenagers drowned at the City of Pella’s municipal pool during a rented nighttime event; underwater lights were operable but turned off and the water was murky so the main drain was not visible.
- Parents sued the City alleging negligence, negligent supervision, premises liability, violations constituting criminal offenses (including involuntary manslaughter), nuisance, and a state-created-danger due-process claim; the parents later withdrew the due-process claim and dismissed nuisance.
- The City moved for summary judgment invoking municipal immunity under Iowa Code § 670.4(12), which insulates municipalities from claims relating to inspected swimming pools unless the act/omission by an employee “constitutes actual malice or a criminal offense.”
- District court granted summary judgment on most negligence claims, but denied it insofar as undisputed facts could support a finding that employee acts constituted involuntary manslaughter; court ruled administrative rule violations did not defeat immunity.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court held violations of Department of Public Health rules relied on by parents violate Iowa Code § 135.38 (thus are misdemeanors and qualify as "criminal offense"), and that involuntary manslaughter can be proved in the civil case by a preponderance of the evidence to defeat immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of Iowa Dep’t of Public Health swimming-pool rules constitutes a "criminal offense" that removes municipal immunity under § 670.4(12) | Rule violations (water clarity/lighting) are misdemeanor criminal offenses under § 135.38, so immunity is waived | Section 1351.5 (chapter 1351) governs pools and criminalizes only statutory violations, not rule violations; § 135.38 does not apply to chapter 1351 rules | Court: Violations of the department rules at issue are misdemeanors under § 135.38 and thus qualify as "criminal offense" to defeat immunity; reversed summary judgment on that ground |
| Whether a civil plaintiff must show a criminal conviction to invoke the § 670.4(12) criminal-offense exception | No conviction required; civil plaintiff may prove the underlying conduct constitutes a criminal offense in the civil case | Criminal conviction (or prosecution) should be required to find an act “constitutes” a criminal offense | Court: No criminal prosecution/conviction required; civil plaintiff may prove the criminal-act exception by preponderance of the evidence |
| Burden of proof required to show an employee’s acts "constitute" a criminal offense (e.g., involuntary manslaughter) in civil suit | Preponderance of the evidence (civil standard) suffices | Beyond a reasonable doubt is required because criminal liability is at issue | Court: Preponderance of the evidence standard applies in the civil proceeding; remand for trial consistent with that instruction |
| Scope of surviving claims (e.g., negligent supervision) given immunity language | Negligent supervision can survive if it would amount to a criminal offense (manslaughter) or actual malice | Broad immunity covers claims relating to swimming pools, including negligent supervision | Court: Claims survive to the extent the acts/omissions could constitute a criminal offense (e.g., manslaughter); otherwise immunity applies; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Raster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990) ("criminal offense" includes misdemeanors punishable by fine or imprisonment)
- Stowers, 823 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012) (civil proceedings may establish conduct constituting a "criminal act" without a criminal conviction)
- Jones v. Blair, 387 N.W.2d 349 (Iowa 1986) (violation of statutory safety rules can constitute negligence per se)
- Baker v. City of Ottumwa, 560 N.W.2d 578 (Iowa 1997) (broad interpretation of § 670.4(12) immunity for claims relating to swimming pools)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (rationale for requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal prosecutions)
- Ne. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Easton Valley Cmty. Sch. Dist., 857 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review on summary judgment)