*1 may acute alcoholism raise reasonable sanity symptom as a
doubt as to his event, any partic-
mental In in this illness. case,
ular find that under the we must cir- record,
cumstances the trial revealed finding
court erred not a reasonable sanity ordering
doubt as to defendant’s separate proceedings for the determina- 783.1, required
tion as thereof section
Code, 1966. alleges State that sanity
defendant’s have been trial,
raised the motion for new Tracy,
cites State v. 219 Iowa Tracy, 527.
N.W. In State v. the defend- plea
ant guilty entered a to the crime of
murder, apparent prior but it is to the
entry plea guilty the defendant in subjected case had been to examina- request.
tion at his own counsel’s apparent
On whole record it is
trial court abused its discretion in not or-
dering psychiatric examination to aid the
court determining separate whether a sanity
trial on the issue should be held. therefore judgment
We reverse the
trial court and pro- remand for further
ceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
All concur. Justices Jr., Appellee, IVES, W.
Glen COMPANY, Corporation,
SWIFT & Appellant.
No. 54352.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Jan. 1971.
Rehearing March Denied *2 Larson,
Paul W. Deck and Robert J. City, appellant. Sioux for Nelson, Gleysteen, Harper, & Kunze Eidsmoe, City, appellee. for Sioux STUART, Justice. damages action for brought
against Company & to recover Swift personal when injuries sustained prem- its into “hot tank on stepped a well” severely ises and was burned. The plaintiff for a in favor of returned verdict $50,000,the Defendant amount asked. appealed.
Plaintiff,
engineer, is techni-
a chemical
(I.B.
cal
Beef
director for Iowa
Packers
arranged
purchase
had
P.).
I.B.P.
dry
its
animal
blood from
use
Swift
pick the blood
operation.
It was to
feed
plant.
L.
up
City
Robert
Sioux
Swift’s
a
Peterson,
president, told
I.B.P. vice
an
from I.B.P.’s
that someone
Swift official
first
management would come with
handled,
see that all details were
truck to
smoothly
off
operation
came
analysis
obtained.
proper
of the blood was
samples
to take
Plaintiff was selected
project
“to
blood and
evaluate
testified:
Peterson
overall sense”.
kind
to see the
of facilities
“We wanted
so that
getting involved with
we were
fu-
problem in the
any
there was
event
dis-
able to
ture,
people
would be
our
management of
Swifts.
cuss them with
at Swifts
over the facilities
He was
look
with
they
come
contact
get
this blood.”
order
plant
plaintiff arrived at Swift’s
When
driven
in truck
September
passed through
Kyle Dykstra, they were
Koeppel, supervisor of
gate. Mr.
guarded
plant, di-
rendering
at Swift’s
operations
loading area.
them to the
rected
position
backed
be-
loading
truck was
into
The tank was constructed of cement and
loading pipe
neath the
which extended was about four to four and one-half feet
building
wall
across
high
long.
from the west
and 46 feet
rough plat
A
is in-
its north end.
help
the “hot well” tank near
cluded
visualize
scene.
*3
tank-trailer,
higher than
Koeppel
in-
about
inches
eight
climbed on the
tank were
grease.
man
of the
loading
signaled
serted a
hose and
the surface
crusted
building
pump.
in
After
the
to start
the
the
wall of the tank
reached
south
Ives
at-
failing
pump operator’s
to attract
the
along
walking
west side
the
tention,
climbed
from
truck
he
down
platform and
mounting
building,
a wooden
end
walked around the south
“easy step” from there onto
taking an
building and entered
a door on
south
I
hot
testified:
“As
well. He
wall
side.
structure I
walking across
was
the wooden
me,
lay
rest-
was
him where a
Ives followed
ask
see what
ahead
could
gap,
structure,
space
reached
room was located.
Ives
When
wooden
side,
not in
Koeppel
appeared
door on the south
was
be a concrete
and then what
truck
than
sight. He decided
return to the
was
lower
surface which
somewhat
wall;
Koeppel’s
approxi-
intend-
and wait for
return. He
of this
the sides
concrete
lower,
he
mately eight
ed to climb onto
trailer from what
inches
thereabouts
was,
dock,
in
thought
easy
loading
step
was a
but
which was
down.”
reality, the “hot well”.
“I
cross-examination he testified:
On
in
I
grease
stopped
The hot
is used
I know
well
to retrieve
know I
and looked.
(cid:127)
rendering operation.
you
Hot water
the surface.
can’t tell
exact-
viewed
I
carrying grease
into
look.
discharged
ly
point
stop
steam
it
I did
are
at what
was
grease
the tank near its
to know I
enough
north end.
did take a careful
look
top
how
to the
tell
thought
comes
and forms a crust.
that was
I can’t
concrete.
empties
I am sure I
hot water
into a sewer.
far
the dock I
down
looked.
one-step
top
area
grease is skimmed
near
at more than the
off
looked
being
sides of
I do
steam
south end
the tank. The
front of me.
remember
recall,
vicinity.
it was on ahead
the blood was to
As I
be transferred to
”
* * *
the truck extended
area of the truck.
across the hot
me
well tank
at its north
up
end. The
was
truck
backed
water,
As the
steam
mixture
against
returning
the tank.
tank,
cre-
grease
discharged
it
was
into
the building stepped
from
into
tank
vapor
over the north
ated a cloud water
planned
step
the south end. He
was
Plaintiff did not realize what
end.
what he
loading
mistook
onto
dock
causing the
He testified: “There
cloud.
the trailer
loading
taking
where the
along
operation going on
the side
was an
place.
say,
cannot
We
view
foga
building
of this
which released
cloud
purpose
broad
of his business
visit that
visibility
into
obscured
the air
scope
exceeded the
as a
invitation
truck,
vicinity
some
which was
matter of
being
law
at the south end of
me,
quite
but I
see
distance ahead of
Presbyterian
the tank. Sullivan v. First
*4
way
clearly most of the
to the truck.”
1373,
(1967),
Church
260 Iowa
152 N.W.2d
628;
(1958),
Holmes v. Gross
250 Iowa
he added: “It
On cross-examination
238,
714;
93 N.W.2d
Nelson v. W.
F.
see a water
not uncommon
unusual to
592,
Woolworth &
211
(1930),
Co.
Iowa
vapor
plant, and
packing
cloud around a
tween and water This could steam injury had occurred while he was wander- fog.” be described more as a cloud of ing building looking around inside the for Here restroom. occurred quote state- following The is a succinct portion vicinity premises happened. “The surface ment of what plaintiff unquestioned in- to which had an It appeared to concrete. hot well be proper vitation. It the jury to allow hot; scummy colored, it was wasn’t scope to determine whether the of the invi- be- crusty. it was concrete I determined presence tation was exceeded his there. step one stepped it. I took fore I onto my support would not learned better. adversely As have decided the issue we weight.” merits, not we need to defendant prop- error alleged whether the decide possible body Plaintiff’s entire with erly raised below. into submerged exception of his head was and he suffered severe this hot mixture here, as claims the facts II. Defendant burns. extensive law, finding support do not a matter to care reasonable
that it failed to exercise reasonably safe premises make the trial court submitted I. of the invi- purpose plaintiff’s use for on de plaintiff of the status of duty anticipate had no to tation in that it premises jury. Defendant fendant’s to man would see that a reasonable plaintiff ex that as a matter of law claims appreciate they existed and as conditions scope and was ceeded the of his invitation danger they presented. time therefore not a business invitee place injury. his Good Wilson v. as one the issue trial treated court 462, 467-169, N. (1934), rich 218 252 Iowa foreseeability. views Defendant 142, 144-145. W. primary negligence as one of matter set out the rule section under defendant letting correct in The trial court was Torts, Second, Restatement, 343, was ex- plaintiff determine whether subject land possessor “A provides: at the scope of his invitation ceeding the his caused physical harm liability pipe through injury. time of his 176 80, (Iowa, 1969), but Duin if, the land v. 173 N.W.2d 83- by a condition on
invitees 85; Shoppers (Iowa, Fair if, Weidenhaft v. only he 1969), 756, 759; 165 v. N.W.2d Knudsen of reason- “(a) the exercise knows Plaza, (Iowa, 1968), Hay Merle Inc. 160 condition, discover able care would 279, 282; N.W.2d Chevraux v. Nahas that it involves an unreason- should realize 822-823, (1967), 817, 260 Iowa 150 N.W.2d invitees, and able risk harm to such 78, 81; Penney (1967), v. C. Smith Co. J. 573, 585-586, Iowa N.W.2d expect they will not dis- “(b) should 801; Grocery (1966), Meader v. Paetz Co. fail to danger, or will cover dr realize the 1101, 1106-1107, 259 Iowa 147 N.W.2d it, protect against themselves Hosts, (Iowa, Ling 215. also Inc. See reasonable care “(c) fails to exercise 1969), N.W.2d protect danger.” against them purpose It would serve no to ana posi- court’s supports the trial lyze applied. the cases in it has been argument responds defendant’s tion and opinion We are of the that the facts here overlap questions opinion also. In our typical are intended to be those covered and both are involved. by restatement rule 343. Plaintiff testified loading thought structure was cases “it Under our is suffi A. He dock. looked at the surface and deter per negligence cient to constitute *5 grease mined the rough crusted was con his act charged son should have foreseen jury properly crete. The the could find probably or omission would result appearance deceptive. It also was person of some kind to some need not —he find that the conditions such were that particular injury have foreseen the that re ordinary prudent reasonable man would Kaffenberger (1946), sulted”. v. Holle appreciate danger the the and situation 542, 547, 804, 807, 22 237 Iowa N.W.2d presented trap pitfall or De him. citations; County Agri Priebe v. Kossuth fendant of of the knew the existence con 93, Assn., (1959), cultural Inc. 251 Iowa appearance ditions and the of surface 292, 100, 99 296: McGrean v. Bos N.W.2d jury It to de material. was 318, 322, Freight (1949), Lines 240 Iowa reasonably cide acting whether defendant 374, 36 N.W.2d anticipated should have that a reasonable applied this to all the facts When rule person looking at the surface of the ma case, circumstances we believe terial in recognize the vat would fail to its jury question was raised as to whether appreciate nature, danger presented it defendant should have foreseen that protect and would fail himself size, construction of a cement vat of this danger. such shape height at a location where invi- present to load tank trailers tees would be urging III. Defendant in his claim probably in- plaintiff blood would result some guilty contributory was jury person to some when it contained negligence aas matter of law is confronted appear- deceptive hot substance with the with the satisfying onerous burden of two solidity, ance of warn- repeated absence often rules: ings protective kind. measures of some (1) Contributory negligence will be de- Country In Hanson v. Town & excep-
B. only cided as a matter of law in Center, Shopping (1966), 259 Iowa Inc. negligence tional case in' such so 542, 870, 874-875, 546-549, we palpable, 144 N.W.2d flagrant and manifest rea- approved and 343A Re- of sections 343 may fairly sonable minds reach other no statement, Second, that deci- Hardware, Since Torts. conclusion. Pastour v. Kolb attempted apply 124; 116, sion we have section (Iowa, Inc. 1969), 173 N.W.2d Capener varying 343 to factual situations. (1967), 259 Iowa Giarratano v. Weitz Co. 824, 835; 1309, 1292, itching R.C.P. accompanied healing 147 N.W.2d process 344(f) (10). increased his discomfort. proper, discharged hospi- in the absence Plaintiff (2) is seldom was from the admission, days to instruct tal of an for the court after 16 returned to work party days with the burden an hour or after still jury although that a two pain. as a matter proof suffering working his claim He full began has established 1970), Pipkin (Iowa, 178 time Nassif v. six seven weeks after accident. law. citations; 334, 336-337, slightly Mark He lost a total work time of over N.W.2d 127, 252 Iowa four (1960), man Hoefer weeks. and citations. N.W.2d permanent scarring sustained to his He exceptional abdomen, cases right right lat-
This is not one lower and lateral established person thigh hospital eral bill in which and his ankles. as a mat- contributory negligence $971, $25, claim of was ambulance services bill doctor’s ter of law. $340. health general testified his Plaintiff also $50,000 asked for IV. it experience as good not as after his was deliberating less after
damages. gets colds and flu more was He before. verdict a half returned a than an hour and periodical- feet him frequently. His bother in his for the full amount favor whether ly. The was not asked doctor prayer. judge trial conditioned general health. burning affect the of a filing' granting a new trial on all in plaintiff of excess remittitur “ex- plaintiff as an The doctor described De $35,000. was filed. remittitur Such way cooperative all patient, cellent appeal claims verdict fendant on earlier hospital much He left through. He prejudice. passion the result reasonable, returned thought I than damages” and “extravagant relies on than felt was reason- a lot sooner work *6 on rather period of deliberations the short extremely get to anxious able. He was situa and close factual lengthy instructions had a plaintiff He said back to work.” support. tions for recovery. amazing and excellent rather in vat temperature liquid of the The the that any indication to find failWe re- plaintiff got out he F. After was 180° prej- passion result of was the verdict clothing. skin moved most an excel- made Although plaintiff udice. peeled off with his arms and ankles seri- injuries very were recovery, his lent was His total skin surface clothing. his excruciatingly painful. ous least varying degrees in and at burned any untoward disclose not record does body sustained second one-half of his injuries evidence graphic events doctor considered degree third burns. His excite inflame or to might tend which body to such burns over one-third indicated testimony Plaintiff’s jurors. gave him a “50- threatening and be life overstating than .rather underplaying was of 50” chance survival. deliber- period of The short suffering. his not indicate does placed pressure alone body was a ations His entire thought- careful give the case changed times to wrapping two failed said: the trial court As during stay hospital. He was ful consideration. his ju- that all of possible entirely Plain- “It is given morphine but no anesthetic. out- liability at the upon agreed excruciating pain, particularly rors were tiff suffered is further deliberations. unwrapping op- set of their wrapping and during each on the apart not far possible they were pain being as like eration. He described the matters Certain their verdict.” finger hot of a amount that felt when he burned impeachment way of body. The in the record water his extended to whole 178 BECKER, had All except
which inhere in verdict have J., concur Justices specially. a on the of who considerable effect concurs liability. is do not believe defendant We that the entitled to a new trial on claim BECKER, (concurring specially). Justice governed by passion preju-
verdict was I concur in the result. dice. persons coming The status of on the to right inherent we exercise our Unless land, premises occupier it af- of as remittitur, Young (Iowa, order v. Miller germane liability, fects to the issues 53; 45, 1969), v. Castner 168 N.W.2d Although the herein matter considered. 638, 659, N. Wright 127 (1964), 256 Iowa to not about be considered was raised 885, 886, 583, af- W.2d 128 N.W.2d appear it argued, proper to review court on defendant’s firmance of lower subject light this what said appeal results in the reinstatement of Supreme done of California Court $50,000. Rule original jury verdict Christian, in Rowland Cal.2d 70 69 250, Davis L W Con Civil Procedure v. & Cal.Rptr. 97, (1968). In that P.2d 561 N. 1970), Company (Iowa, struction entirely case the the ficti- court discarded Wright 228-229; Castner v. W.2d tious common law distinctions based on supra, 256 128 N.W. (1964), Iowa injured party’s trespasser, status as a licen-
2d at 886. invitee, see, social invitee and business like. submit we should do likewise. $50,000 was founded verdict expenses and for medical $846.16 $1336 The Rowland case should be examined pain and wages, excruciating loss entirety spe- the purpose its but for of this inevitably accompanies discomfort which quote cial concurrence it worthwile to burns, disability days of total severe paragraphs: four selected partial hospital, four five weeks of permanent disability and minimal the areas where court “One af- scarring does consisting departed funda- other courts have from the appearance. Plaintiff also fect his normal in- concept mental that man is liable periodic trouble testified to an undescribed re- by his is with juries caused carelessness suscepti- change in with his and a his feet gard liability possessor of land bility evi- flu and The doctor’s colds. injuries persons who have entered the last matters. dence failed to mention upon suggested land. It been liability special regarding rules *7 undergone painful has Anyone who possessor of land are to historical con- due experience a burn a small of serious on stemming place high siderations portion body of conception his has some of Eng- held traditionally in land excruciating pain plain- to which this thought, lish and American the dominance subjected. However, tiff tem- it was landowning prestige and of class recovery porary plaintiff’s was excel- period of England during the formative disability. permanent lent with minimal liability, governing possessor’s the rules court, exception the writ- This with the of Harper heritage (2 and the of feudalism. er, support there is substantial believes Torts, p. supra, James, The Law of $50,000. jitry for the award of record 1432.) departure “The from the fundamental This case is affirmed remanded ac- liability has been negligence of rule setting judgment entered aside of plaintiff ei- complished by classifying entry judg- on of the remittitur licensee, or trespasser, invitee as a ther ment on the verdict. special rules as to adopting then possessor each of the by the duty owed Affirmed and remanded. question liability. of Thus the admissibili- speaking a tres- Generally classifications. ty question preserved is of evidence on this or remains person enters a who passer is parties, rigid distinctions between privilege to but a another without upon land of status, dependent on their eliminated. like a social so; person a a licensee is do enlightened is This action be same should invitee and who is not an guest who taken now this court Iowa. upon land or remain privileged to enter consent, possessor’s virtue is invited who a business visitor
invitee is the land to enter remain permitted or indirectly con- directly or purpose
for a dealings between business
nected with Stewart, 24 Cal.2d (Oettinger
them. 1221.)
133,136, 148P.2d 156A.L.R. Stephen of In the Matter the ADOPTION OF life, not become “A or limb does man’s CLARK, Clark, Perry Vic- Walter Dennis worthy by the law nor protection less Clark, Clark, tor Brooks David Paul worthy compensation under loss less Laura Clark. upon the land has come law because he No. 53784. permis- permission or with another without Rea- purpose. Supreme sion but without business Court Iowa. vary ordinarily their people sonable do not Jan. matters, and depending upon such conduct par- injured upon the status of the to focus licensee,
ty or invitee trespasser, as a question whether
order to determine care, duty is con-
the landowner has
trary mores and hu- to our modern social rules
manitarian values. The common law proper than illuminate the
obscure rather govern should deter-
considerations which question duty.
mination of the
“ * * * proper applied test to be liability possessor
to the of land in
accordance with section 1714 of the Civil management in the
Code whether
property he has acted as a reasonable man probability view the to oth
ers, and, although plaintiff’s as a status licensee, may
trespasser, invitee
light giving status the facts rise to such bearing on the of lia
have some
bility, the status not determinative.”
(loc.cit. Cal.Rptr. 100, 443 P.2d
568.) merely
The California Code section codi- general
fies the common does law and
create a meaningful distinction between the
Iowa and California be law. should recognizes
noted that California the status injured party bearing on the has a