Todd A. Mulhern, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Elizabeth M. Von Linden v. Catholic Health Initiatives A/K/A Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corp. D/B/A Mercy Franklin Center and/or Mercy Hospital and/or Mercy Psychiatric Services, 799 N.W.2d 104

Elizabeth Von Linden, a 40-year-old executive with a history of severe depression, committed suicide after discharge from Mercy Hospital's psychiatric ward and following a June 6-8 inpatient stay.
Her husband filed a wrongful death action against Mercy alleging negligent care; Mercy asserted a comparative fault defense by Von Linden's own conduct.
A jury allocated 90% fault to Von Linden and 5% to Mercy and 5% to Dr. Jennisch, resulting in a defense verdict for Mercy.
The trial court allowed the jury to compare Von Linden's fault with Mercy's under Iowa Code chapter 668, and the estate objected to various instructions but the court overruled.
The estate argued, among other things, that Von Linden lacked the mental capacity to be negligent and that suicide cannot be compared under chapter 668; the court and then the appellate court addressed these arguments.
The supreme court affirmed, holding that Von Linden owed a duty of self-care as an outpatient and that comparative fault with Mercy was appropriate; it rejected the estate's other requested instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in submitting comparative fault	Estate argued error in permitting Von Linden's fault to be compared to Mercy's fault	Mercy argued comparatives under 668 were proper and supported by statute and precedent	No reversible error; comparative fault permitted
Whether suicide can be fault under Iowa Code 668.1	Estate contends suicide is an intentional act not within fault	Mercy contends suicide can be within negligence/fault under 668.1	Suicide can be negligent conduct for fault under 668.1
Whether treater's duty to prevent suicide precludes comparative fault	Mercy's defense should be barred by duty to prevent self-harm	Outpatient duty does not preclude comparative fault; evidence supports fault allocation	No preclusion; comparative fault permitted where applicable
Whether to give the 'result of treatment' instruction	Estate sought instruction allowing result of treatment as evidence of negligence	Koslow governs; such instruction was improper	District court did not abuse its discretion; instruction not required

Hobart v. Shin, 185 Ill.2d 283 (Ill. Supreme Court 1998) (supports allowing mental capacity question; not controlling in Iowa)
Maunz v. Perales, 276 Kan. 313 (Kan. Supreme Court 2003) (outpatient suicide case; permissibility of comparative fault for noncustodial victims)
Champagne v. United States, 513 N.W.2d 75 (N.D. Supreme Court 1994) (advocates considering suicide in fault analysis; interconnected with duty concepts)
Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 244 P.3d 924 (Wash. Supreme Court 2010) (discusses suicide fault and duty in Washington; comparative fault context)
Sheron v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 18 P.3d 796 (Colo. App. 2000) (holds patient may be considered at fault in suicide-related medical cases)
Tratchel v. Essex Group, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 171 (Iowa 1990) (fraud not within 668; informs treatment of intentional acts in 668 context)
Carson v. Webb, 486 N.W.2d 278 (Iowa 1992) (intentional acts not within 668; collateral source rule distinction)
Goetzman v. Wichem, 327 N.W.2d 742 (Iowa 1982) (precedent leading to adoption of comparative fault regime)
John v. Hyundai Motor Co., 773 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2009) (confirms no exception to comparative fault in certain contexts; application to 668)
Koslow v. Smith, 757 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 2008) (rejected 'result of treatment' instruction; expert-required causation framework)