*1 Donna, not munications were intended for Moreover,
for Richard. the record does
show reason to doubt Don- Chaney any had
na’s Richard were assurance that she and Donna
divorcing. Chaney’s contacts with plans,
concerned her not her rela- future have been
tionship with Richard. He mar-
guilty poor judgment proposing
riаge to Donna while she was still married fact could reason- Richard but no trier of
ably outrageous find his conduct “so
character, degree, so extreme decency,
go beyond possible all bounds atrocious, regarded utterly
and to be community.”
intolerable in a civilized sustaining not err in trial court did judgment. summary
defendant’s motion for
AFFIRMED. HEUMPHREUS,
Jerry Administrator Billy Heumphreus,
the Estate of Gene Parent,
Deceased; Heumphreus, Teresa
Guardian, Amy and next friend of
Heumphreus, minor; and Teresa Individually, Appellants,
Heumphreus, Iowa, Appellee.
STATE of
No. 68738.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June
758 Walker, 7. Plaintiff’s decedent City, appel- Iоwa for When arrived
Bruce L. there was prison hospital at the no ade- lants. quate attention or medical assistance Miller, Gen., Atty. and Iris J. J. Thomas available to Plaintiff’s decedent and a Gen., for Post, Atty. appellee. Asst. County Lee Ambulаnce was summoned UHLENHOPP, P.J., by and Considered which Plaintiff’s transported decedent to McCORMICK, LARSON, HARRIS, a Fort community hospital. Madison CARTER, JJ. 8. one Approximately hour after at arrival the Fort Plaintiff’s decedent’s UHLENHOPP, Justice. hospital, community Madison Plaintiff’s action wrоngful by This the surviv- dead. pronounced decedent was ors penitentiary of a deceased inmate raises 9. who were persons responsible All subject-matter jurisdiction a of of for the described herein were incident the district court. agents of the State of Iowa employees or present In the action the survivors filed a scope in the their acting were against petition in district court the State with the agency employment or State containing following allegations with Iowa material hereto. at all times respect liability: to Defendant, its through agents 10. or operates sys- penal 2. Defendant and as employees, was a result the state of Iowa to include the tem for 29, 1979, thereof, caused on November penitentiary subject Fort Madison and is Billy death. Heumphreus’ Gene Code, to 25A Iowa 1979 and 1981. Chapter 11. negligence State Said day 3. or about the 29th of No- On cause of proximate Iowa was a the death vember, 1979, Plaintiff’s dеcedent was an Billy Heumphreus. Gene Augusta Unit of the John inmate separate a Plaintiffs also filed claim Bennett Correction Center located north against before the industrial com- the State Penitentiary. of the Fort Madison missioner the worker’s working on Plain- 4. While that date act, 85, chapter (1979) (refer- Iowa Code ill tiff’s decedent became and a state em- Code). ences are to that Augusta diagnosed at Unit ployee Billy Heumphreus’ Gene medical condi- In Statе chal present tion. lenged jurisdiction district court Plaintiff’s decedent was 5. Thereafter grounded a on sec by appearance prison for transported facility to 25A.14(6) Spe tions and 85.59 of the Code. treatment state in a persоnnel medical to way challenge cial is a proper van. state subject-matter jurisdic the district court’s delay a prison 6. There was that the industrial com ground included: facility which jurisdiction. Jansen missioner has exclusive a) decedent required Plaintiff’s 323, Harmon, 326 v. 164 N.W.2d turnkey after his through walk area diagnosed suffering been condition had mak- Chapter provides system 25A for attack; from a heart ing against the State notwith- claims b) required decedent was Plaintiff’s standing immunity, but section sovereign turnkey area period wait in the 25A.14(6) provides: chapter of that diag- time after his condition had been of this shall not provisions attack; from a suffering nosed as heart any claim apply respect against c) required Plaintiff’s decedent was stаte, to: hospital waiting after prison walk to turnkey area after his condition an inmate as defined claim diagnosed suffering Any had been in section 85.59. heart attack.
759 Moines, Section 85.59 eased inmates. apparently outgrowth of Des Lang City 203 557, Frederick v. Men’s 294 Reformatory, (Iowa 1980); N.W.2d 560-61 Miller 797, N.W.2d (Iowa 1973). The section v. Dickinson County, Iowa first, provides second, para- in its and fifth 31, 32 (1885); N.W. (Second) Restatement graphs: of Torts 314A (1965). But for section *3 section, Code, the of 25A.14(6)
For the of this the purposes clearly the district term “inmate” a confined court person subject-matter jurisdic- includes would in re- reformatory, a state tion penitentiary, present under 25A of the tort center, or cor- lease other state penal 25A.14(6) or claim. Do sections and 85.59 sub- person rectional while that institution stitute worker’s compensation a claim for works in connection with the mainte- the tort present claim? This poses industry nance or in of the institution an of problem statutory a construction. or while detail to maintаined therein on 25A.14(6) II. not Section does allow perform public on a works services liability State tort for an inmate’s claim project. which under falls section 85.59. What is permanently incapacita- If an inmate is provides such a clаim? Section 85.59 that his injury performance ted in the or an includes a confined person inmate to a her work in connection with the mainte- (which Heumphreus correctional institution industry nance of the institution or in an was), working while in with connectiоn the maintained or while to therein on detail (which maintenance the institution perform services on a works public was). this end the in- Heumphreus Does project, that shall inmate be awarded an quiry? injured Is inmate who is con- only such as are in sec- provided benefits fined to a correctional institution and work- 85.34, 85.27 and section subsections the ing in the maintenance of institution and 3. weekly perma- The rate for such compensation entitled ipso facto to worker’s equal sixty-six nent be to disability shall tort, and to seek relief for a disentitled and two-thirds of the state aver- percent the the other facts of whatever as de- age weekly paid employees wage be? department job termined Iowa by the рrovisions service under the of section paragraphs second and The fifth 96.3 at the of the and in effect time question. on The section 85.59 bear this injury. an inmate is begins, second “If paragraph incapacitated by injury the permanently injury, If death results the in connec performance of his or her work to the paid benefits shall be awarded and of the institu the maintenance tion with dependents the inmate in other to worker’s inmate is entitled tion” the that except workers’ cases added.) The compensation. (Emphasis weekly sixty-six be to equal rate shall resulting with dealing fifth paragraph, and aver- two-thirds of the state percent death, paragraph. second parallels age paid as de- weеkly wage employees require a the italicized words construe job termined Iowa department injury or the permanent nexus between provisions service under of section of the work— performance death and 96.3 at of the аnd effect time per “in” the or death must be injury injury. of the work. formance us leads analysis of the sections This a on the hearing The district court held such situations following conclusion in and sustained special appearance, it. under An “inmate” one. present appealed. survivors section and hence section 85.59 (a) confined in person who is 25A.14(6) is has a jailer I. At common law a institution, at work on (b) a correctional diligence duty to exercise reasonable institutiоn, (c) per- and ill, injured, or dis- maintenance reference to the care or manently incapacitated per- Corp., killed in the this time. Martin Ju-Li a result —of formance —as that work. Such worker’s N.W.2d 871 If the is person compensa- entitled worker’s decided compensation claim is heard and not tion but to relief tort. first, Otherwise the death is the decision relief for person is entitled seek compensable because heart attack compensation. cannot have worker’s but perform- did not from Heumphreus’ result work, special appearance ance of then the allega III. are the survivors’ What overruled; present case should be but allege Heumphreus They tions here? that the if thе decision is heart attack did (a) to a correctional institu confined result from the work and the death is com- (b) tion and at work maintenance pensable, then allege They also he had a heart institution. this case should be sustained. On оther attack and died as result of hand, if case is this tort tried decided care. If the heart attack result post-attack *4 first and a that the death decision made from the of the work under performance ed Heumphreus’ performance resulted from v. Sondag either the theories Ferris work, appearance then should special the be Hardware, 1974), 903 (Iowa 220 N.W.2d sustained; that if a decision is made but survivors would be entitled to worker’s work, heart not result from the attack did injury оr compensation growing for death present special then the should out of care after the heart attack. improper not be and the survivors will be overruled Club, Bills Brinkman v. Buffalo Football compensation. entitled to worker’s 699, (W.D.N.Y.1977); F.Supp. 433 702 Dix Co., 499, 53 Cal.App.3d on v. Ford Motor necessity find the consti- no decide 505, 125 872, (1976); 875 Komel v. Cal.Rptr. present by tutional survivors Co., Ill.App.3d Edison 56 Commonwealth supplemental brief. 970,14 563, 967, 565, 842, Ill.Dec. 372 N.E.2d REVERSED. (1978); 844 v. Szydlowski General Motors 356, 358, 26, 397 Corp., Mich. 245 N.W.2d 28 All concur except Justices CARTER (1976); Compensa 1 Workmen’s Larson’s McCORMICK, JJ., specially. who concur 13.20, 61.12(d) (1982). 2 tion Law Id. § CARTER, (concurring specially). Justice This is line with rule in tort cases Koos, 193, generally. Casey v. 323 N.W.2d agree I that I concur in the result because Ernzen, (Iowa 1982); 197 Hunt v. 252 it allegations petition under (Iowa 1977); N.W.2d 447 Becker D. possible would be for evidence sus- Co., Distributing & E. N.W.2d does fall under sec- tain a claim which not The survivors therefore would 85.29; permit would tion such circumstance be to relief for tort. not entitled be negligence claim to maintаined believe, however, that chapter 25A. I If however the heart attack did not majority unduly limits circum- opinion Sondag result from the work under either possible. this under which would be stances anyway, but theory would occurred not be to work the survivors would entitled holding majority, of the de- Under the they compensation er’s but would be enti that the fact finder by termination try liability to establish for tled per- heart attack resulted from decedent’s for damages resulting conclusively would estab- formanсe of work care, under the principle sec post-attack his death compensation lish that for 314A of the Restatement. be on the worker’s only based possible I that it would be for allege The survivors do in this law. believe IV. heart to shоw decedent’s the heart attack resulted from the evidence performance the work. their alle- attack caused Since performance If death was not. this juris- work but that his relating to merits and gations if it is also intertwined, found to be thе case and court are were diction of the district from the death resulted be made shown that ruling jurisdiction should not state, negligence agents this cir- permit
cumstance should a claim under regardless 25A whether performance
heart attack resulted from the
of work.
McCORMÍCK, J., joins con- this
currence.
Douglas Cоonrad, P.C., Hudson, V. for appellant. Wolf, Waterloo,
Melvin H. appellee. In re the MARRIAGE OF Charles L. UHLENHOPP, P.J., Considered VETTERNACK and Beatrice M. HARRIS, McCORMICK, LARSON, and Vetternack. CARTER, JJ.
Upon Petition of Charles L. *5 HARRIS, Justice. Vetternack, Appellant, The here is whether an order for support child payments should been Concerning
And Beatrice M. modified because the father became incar- Vetternack, Appellee. felony. cerated for a agree We No. 68800. trial modify court’s refusal order. Supreme Court of Iowa. аdopt our own the trial court’s facts: statement
June was marriage parties dis- 12th, solved on March 1980. Pursuant decree, petitioner was ordered to pay forty child in the sum of support each of per per dollars week child until agе the minor children reach the died, married, or otherwise became eman- cipated, might whichever occur first. That granted peti- decree further ... equi- tioner a fifty percent interest ty dwell- parties’ residence [in time, was ing], petitioner ... At the John Deere Tractor employed grossing ap- Works in and was Waterloo proximately per week. $415.00 22nd, 1981, petitioner
On February charge on the arrested criminal 708.6 terrorism Code [Iowa alleged in- (1981) The terrorism ].... through firing volved the firearm respondent’s residence window of the while and the children were respondent result, not report home. he could As a