*1 sim- bears a substantial Barad, In the lan- ilarity case. to this stated:
guage of the Act involved Act, immediate im- being deemed of
This and effect shall be in full force
portance, passage after its January (two newspapers).
publication in January 1 to be the held
Id. at 378. We date, reasoning 26 of that section
effective mandates that laws Constitution
the Iowa publication and not on take effect
shall legislature to allowing the
publication, thus date. intermediate effective
choose an legislative intent promotes This time for the providing preparation legislation. As in other
as it has done Barad, legislature has believe the effective date other than
picked specific publication date. disagree the trial summary, with determination that section Consequently, case. we re-
applies to this ruling excluding the the trial court’s
verse expert
testimony of architect’s witness. appellant’s re- have also considered impose ap- sanctions
quest to merit in this claim.
pellee and find no REMANDED.
REVERSED AND CHAPMAN,
Timothy Appellant, A. CRAIG, D. Main Street
William d/b/a Defendant, Rogers,
Gary Rogers and Glenda J. Southfork Restaurant &
d/b/a
Lounge, Appellees.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
As Corrected Nov. 1988. Wiggins
David S.
N. McCon-
Edward
LaMarca, Marcucci, Wiggins
nell of
&
*2
771
Anderson, P.C.,
Moines,
ap- mary
motion,
Des
judgment
West
concluding that
pellant.
Craig
step
was a
removed from the rule
because neither he nor
employees
his
were
Wintroub,
Gerry M. Rinden of
Rinden &
summoning
police
the
nor
Okun,
Moines,
appellees Rogers
Des
were the
called to the
of
Rogers.
the Main
Tap.
Street
This latter
appeal.
Rogers’
before us on this
The
summary judgment ruling
is the
issue
SCHULTZ, Justice.
before this court.
adoption
to reconsider
We are asked
our
Chapman
urges
first
the Court to
of the fireman’s rule and to abolish it. We
the
grow
abolish
fireman’s rule because a
recently adopted
dramshop
the rule in a
ing number of
apply
courts have refused to
denying
policeman
action
a
a
in
it or have
scope.
restricted its
Minnesota
in
grounded
those cases which the action is
legislatively
has
abolished the rule. Minn.
on the same conduct that created the need
Oregon
Stat.
604.06.
also had abolished
§
to call for the officer’s assistance. Potteb-
the rule.
Murphy,
Christensen v.
296 Or.
Hinds,
642,
(Iowa
347 N.W.2d
647
aum v.
610,
1210, 1216-18(1984),
678 P.2d
based in
1984).
We later limited the rule
re-
part
legislative
implied
of
abolition
fusing
apply
to
it to situations in which the
assumption of risk.
Prior to
performing
officer is
a law enforcement
adoption
fault,
our
comparative
of
inwe
activity unrelated to the violation that re-
contrast, have
only secondary
abolished
as
quired
presence.
Gail v.
sumption of risk
contributory negli
where
662,
(Iowa 1987).
410 N.W.2d
666
gence was a defense.
Rosenau v.
of
applied
The
court
district
fireman’s rule
Esterville,
125,
(Iowa
199 N.W.2d
132-33
granting
in
partial summary judgment.
1972). Primary assumption of risk has
We affirm.
been retained
an affirmative defense.
During
evening
21,
of November
Parsons v. Nat’l Dairy
Congress,
Cattle
1985, Randall Burkhead was served alco-
620,
277 N.W.2d
622
Since
beverages
Tap
holic
at the Main
Street
adoption
comparative negligence,
our
of
operated by
Lorimor. This tavern is
Wil-
changed
position. Campbell
have not
Craig,
liam
who is also the licensee under
Roekel,.
406,
v.
347
409-10
Van
chapter
(1985).
Iowa Code
123
leaving
After
the Main Street
Burk-
change
position
We cannot view the
of
of
head
went Winterset
was served at
growing
two states as a
trend
this area
Lounge.
the Southfork Restaurant &
The
majority
law when
of states have
operated by Gary
Southfork is
and Glenda
adopted
application
either
or affirmed the
Rogers (Rogers),
are licen-
e.g.
of the fireman’s rule. See Walters v.
sees.
Sloan,
152,
199,
Cal.Rpt.
20 Cal.3d
142
571
When Burkhead refused to leave the
(1977);
Varela,
P.2d 609
115
Grable
Southfork,
employee
po-
summoned the
222,
911,
(App.1977);
Ariz.
564 P.2d
912
Timothy Chapman
lice. Officer
of the Win-
State,
609,
(Fla.
Berriel v.
368
610
So.2d
Department responded
terset Police
to the App.1979);
Naiditch,
406,
Dini v.
20 Ill.2d
Chapman
necessary
call.
found it
to arrest
416-17,
881,
(1960);
170 N.E.2d
885-86
Burkhead,
process, Chapman
and in the
Thompson
Corp.
v. Warehouse
Amer
injured.
was
ica,
(La.App.1976);
So.2d
Bu
brought
Son, Inc.,
Chapman
action un-
chanan v. Prickett &
203 Neb.
(1985)
684, 687,
(1979);
der
section
Iowa Code
Steel
Craig
Rogers.
Lind,
425, 427,
and the
The defendants man v.
634 P.2d
Nev.
summary judgment.
(1981);
Freda,
filed motions for
Berko v.
93 N.J.
granted
Rogers’
(1983);
trial court
motion for
Clark
summary judgment,
292, 295-96,
Corby,
based on the fireman’s
75 Wis.2d
Landau,
rule. The trial court
Craig’s
generally
denied
sum-
see
N.
promotion
of one or more
Thomas,
Liability related to
Martin,
2 Premises
M.
at 734. As
legitimate state interests.
in the
Regardless,
§ 14.03[2][a][iii]
citizens should be
stated
adopted
time since we have
span of
short
way
encouraged
any
and not in
discour
no new
reasons
we see
relying
public employ
aged from
on those
position.
our
abandon
*3
specially
have been
trained and
ees who
Chapman’s
no merit in
similarly find
paid
deal with these hazards. Potteb
losses would be
that officers’
assertion
aum,
government
at 645. The
through liability
fairly compensated
more
personnel spe
employs
also
and trains its
Pottebaum,
stated in
insurance. As we
cifically to deal with those hazards that
these risks are more effective-
“we believe
may
uncircumspect
an
citizen
result from
by passing them on to
ly
fairly spread
public policy to
ry, and it offends
have
entities
through
government
public
private liability merely be
citizens invite
.firefighters
offi-
employ
that
for those
they
cause
create a need
at 645-46.
cers.” 347 N.W.2d
Finally,
services. Id.
we are aware of
insurance,
wide-spread
the fire-
existence of
Chapman next contends that
these risks are more
we believe
Equal
Protection
rule violates
man’s
effectively
fairly spread by passing
and Iowa Con-
of the United States
clauses
through
govern
them on to the
that
of the
stitutions. He asserts
members
employ firefighters and
ment entities that
public safety officers are treated
police officers. Id. at 645-46. The classifi
differently.
He cites Gail v.
by
amply supported
cation is
reasons which
(where
(Iowa 1987)
the officer
N.W.2d 662
legitimate
interests.
promote
state
to recover under the
was allowed
sustained
an auto acci-
considering
act
Other courts
this issue have
by an intoxicated driver when
dent caused
held the classification denied no
equal protection rights.
high speed
England
chase that created the
Task
it was
er,
129 N.H.
529 A.2d
presence)
and Potteb-
need for
Flowers v. Rock Creek Terrace Ltd. Part
(the
recovery for
officer was denied
aum
n.
nership, 308 Md.
being
by
patron
assaulted
a drunk
after
371 n. 12
being
quell
called to
a disturbance at a
tavern)
authority. Chapman correctly
as
Finally, Chapman asserts that
apply equally
must
to all
states
laws
rights
Rogers waived their
under the fire
class, Keasling
within a
members
significantly enhancing the
by
man’s rule
All Justices concur SNELL, JJ., dissent HARRIS and of Iowa. Court LAVORATO, J., who takes no part. LARSON, (dissenting). Justice largely is
The fireman’s rule founded that, if
public policy, a concern a fireman
(or public employee), is allowed to similar arising call for injuries out of a
sue
assistance, might discourage it citizens calling help. Pottebaum v.
from See 642, 645
Hinds, 347 N.W.2d is, empirical data
There no case,
presented in this or in fact, I
support that conclusion. believe
there is considerable doubt
thought possible tort would even contemplating of a citizen
enter the mind now, especially help.
call for That is true me, virtually property all
it seems to are covered insurance
owners injuries. hand, there can no doubt
On the other be every
that in case where the fireman’s invoked, public policy another is frustrat- policy favoring a
ed. That is the
party’s right to seek reimbursement caused of anoth- That should not denied a
er. be persons of a on the basis
broad suppos- speculative as that
edly underlying the fireman’s rule.
I would reverse. SNELL, JJ., join this
HARRIS and
dissent.