Steven Eurich v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C. and Cintas Corporation No. 2
17-0302
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- In Feb. 2014 Steven Eurich slipped and fell after attempting to step over a wrinkled entry rug at a Bass Pro store; he admitted seeing the rug’s defect before stepping on it.
- Eurich sued Bass Pro and Cintas (which serviced the rug) for negligence; defendants denied liability and moved for summary judgment.
- Defendants argued Eurich’s prior knowledge of the hazard eliminated any duty to protect him (relying on older no-duty/obvious-danger principles).
- Eurich argued Iowa has adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts duty framework, under which an open-and-obvious condition generally affects the plaintiff’s negligence, not the landowner’s duty, and so summary judgment was improper.
- The district court granted summary judgment without ruling on Eurich’s late-filed affidavit; Eurich appealed.
- The Court of Appeals applied Restatement (Third) §7 and §51, concluded the district court erred by treating obviousness as dispositive of duty, reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty despite plaintiff’s knowledge of the hazard | Eurich: Iowa follows Restatement (Third); known/obvious hazards go to plaintiff’s negligence, not duty | Bass Pro/Cintas: Eurich’s admission he saw the rug means no duty (no-liability rule for open-and-obvious dangers) | Court: Duty exists inquiry governed by Restatement (Third); obviousness generally affects plaintiff’s negligence, not duty; summary judgment was erroneous |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on undisputed facts | Eurich: factual dispute on comparative negligence and residual risk precludes summary judgment | Defendants: no material dispute—plaintiff knew the danger so no liability | Court: Questions of negligence and proximate cause for jury; reversed summary judgment |
| Whether the court’s failure to rule on an offered affidavit required reversal | Eurich: court should have ruled on admission before ruling on summary judgment | Defendants: objected to late exhibit | Court: Because reversal on duty grounds, court did not address the affidavit issue as unnecessary |
| Proper Restatement authority for duty analysis | Eurich: Restatement (Third) adopted by Iowa controls | Defendants: relied on older Restatement (Second) no-duty formulations | Court: Adopted and applied Restatement (Third) sections 7 and 51 for duty analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (adopting Restatement (Third) §7 duty analysis)
- Ludman v. Davenport Assumption High Sch., 895 N.W.2d 902 (Iowa 2017) (adopting Restatement (Third) §51 re: land possessor duty and obvious dangers)
- Gottschalk v. Pomeroy Dev., Inc., 893 N.W.2d 579 (Iowa 2017) (confirming use of Restatement (Third) duty principles)
- Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742 (Iowa 1982) (abandoning contributory negligence for comparative negligence)
- Schleisman v. Dolezal, 120 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 1963) (illustrative of older rule treating obvious dangers as defeating liability)