*1 recovery injuries he from the complete Crystal KIESAU, Appellant, any in the and that
sustained accident caused existing problems health were v. injuries unconnected conditions Tracey County, BANTZ, Buchanan Likewise, suffi- accident. there is Iowa, Davis, R. Leonard finding support jury’s cient evidence Appellees. pain would suffer no future Pexa No. 03-0815. body and no future loss of use of suffering con- injuries. to his 1999 We attributable Supreme of Iowa. Court clude, therefore, court did not trial 1, 2004. Sept. grant refusing abuse its discretion ground damages found new trial on the inadequate. were It follows
the court did not its discretion in abuse trial.
failing grant conditional new Cmty. Sch.
See Kawtman Mar-Mac 1977)
Dint,
(holding plaintiff since was “not entitled of alleged inadequacy
a new trial because verdict to additur any right the involved foreclosed”). concomitantly
[was]
VII. Conclusion. assignments have reviewed the
We urged by plaintiff
error and have found af- Accordingly,
no basis for reversal. judgment
firm the district in favor court’s
of the defendant.
AFFIRMED. LARSON, J., justices
All concur except no part.
who takes *5 Firm, Riley Riley
Tom Tom Law P.L.C., Rapids, appellant. for Cedar Correll, Sheerer, Engels Kevin D. Benson, Demro, P.L.C., & Engels, Galles Falls, appellee Bantz. Cedar of Rush Nichol- William G. Nicholson & son, P.L.C., Rapids, for appellees Cedar County Buchanan and Davis. WIGGINS, defamation, Justice. on the compensatory issues damages, punitive damages. and (Bantz), Bantz a sheriff Tracey deputy (Coun- County employed the Buchanan Background. I. Facts and Proceed- Department, photo- ty) Sheriffs altered ings. Kiesau graph Crystal of fellow officer in a light When viewed most favorable (Kiesau) appear to make it that Kiesau Kiesau, supports the record following standing with her K-9 in front of dog facts. In began October Kiesau her ex- her sheriffs vehicle with her breasts employment County with the deputy as a Bantz posed. electronically showed and sheriff. only She was first and female the altered to third photograph mailed employed by department deputy as a actions, Upon learning persons. of Bantz’s Initially, sheriff. Kiesau worked as an brought an action against Kiesau Bantz agent drug undercover force. task privacy. defamation invasion of She Later, she involved in -became the K-9 petition later amended her to include - ‘ eventually program, becoming dog han- negligent hiring, supervision, claims for dler. In the with Kies- summer against County and Bu- retention permission, the K-9 training au’s school’s County chanan Davis Sheriff Leonard posted photograph website of Kiesau (Davis). standing in front of a marked Buchanan summary The defendants moved for County patrol car sheriff her police judgment. granted The district court dog. n summary judgment in favor of Davis also County employed Bantz aas County rejecting *6 the Kiesau’s claims deputy Bantz sheriff.' is the of son-in-law hiring, negligent supervision, and retention Davis. tried to friendly Kiesau with did physical injury. because she not incur a Bantz, seldom acknowledged but he her The court also when it district found and would oftentimes walk out of the room light the record in a favorable
viewed most eventually when Kiesau entered. Kiesau Kiesau, law, to as a matter of she against a complaint made Bantz after he punitive damages against entitled to Davis. began critiques on her re- writing official ‘ The overruled n court Bantz’s motion for ports. judgment. against summary The claims employment, Over the course of his to in a proceeded resulting Bantz trial many Davis other complaints received verdict in favor of Kiesau. - against Captain Hepke Bantz. testified in complaints lodged against Because conclude a claim on the based Bantz were retention, negligent hiring, supervision, complaints the most he has ever received injured party physical against need not in of deputy twenty-two years suffer a his injury, genuine a experience. and issue of material fact law enforcement Ser- In to geant exists as whether Kiesau is entitled to sent a Wolfgram to Davis and memo damages punitive against concerning on her claim re- Hepke Bantz’s refusal to Davis, spond dispatch we reverse the district court’s order in- Wolfgram to a call. summary granting judgment Hepke, in favor of and “I getting formed Davis am County. complaining nothing Davis and affirm the people We tired of that judgment favor of against happens Deputy Kiesau ever to when Bantz Bantz properly complaint because district court in- up.” is written In Lieu- the jury structed and evidence Jerry complaint substantial tenant D. Furness wrote a supported against verdict Bantz and recommended Davis terminate Bantz department of sheriffs and Furness alluded to members a canine handler. as It Independence Department. Police problems and disciplinary Bantz’s recent many people how viewed the is unclear on Bantz’s lack this recommendation based first, At Bantz photograph. altered identi- integrity judgment; honesty, good and of fied himself as the sender altered inability independently to Bantz’s work photograph, but he later sent altered cooperation unsupervised; lack of and his Bantz also photograph anonymously. ad- unit and other members of the his showing photograph mitted the altered courage. Fur- and his lack of supervisors; they while other law enforcement officers waiting Bantz “a lawsuit ness described on duty. he were and In dog.” happen even without a written again once submitted Furness an anony- In Bantz sent November Hepke Davis complaint stating and under the name message, mous electronic the cause the turmoil and low Bantz was al- iamyourdaddy9@hotmail.com Furness in- department. morale in the of Po- photograph tered to Assistant Chief that Bantz Hepke formed Davis “is Meyers. Independence, Darwin lice admittedly arrogant knowledge in his that investigate identity decided Meyers anything nothing hap- will he can do photograph. of the sender the altered expressed to him.” Furness also pen Meyers Bantz. in- He determined it was in the de- feelings deputies of the other photograph, formed Furness of the altered actions would even- partment Bantz’s in turn informed Kiesau. Kiesau tes- who Furness further tually cause lawsuit. angry she was humiliated and when tified were deputies looking informed Davis Kiesau photograph. sought she saw to run Davis for sher- against for someone treatment for her emotional psychiatric ap- resulting actions. Davis iff because Bantz’s distress from Bantz’s actions. response no parently took action against seeking Kiesau filed suit Bantz complaints. these damages compensatory punitive privacy. and invasion of La- defamation February 2000, Kiesau sustained On ter, County Kiesau added the and Davis as injuries in a physical collision with another petition alleged defendants. amended *7 duty'and vehicle while she was on travel- added negligently the two defendants April 27, ing police in her vehicle. On hired, supervised, retained Bantz. She employment left at Kiesau her the sought compensatory damages against sheriffs office after Davis asked her to County. also sought Davis and She department he resign from the because did damages punitive against Davis. physically capable she was believe activities of performing heavy-duty a County The moved for and Davis sum- police officer. mary judgment. Relevant to this appeal, they argued district court should dis- February In his home com- from negligent Kiesau’s hiring, miss claims of acquired puter, photograph Bantz a and supervision, retention because Kiesau Kiesau her K-9 posing dog uniformed physical injury, no and Davis claimed can- digitally appear and altered it to make it punitive for damages. not be liable pulled had her shirt up Kiesau to in expose Beginning court, her breasts. Febru- Judge In the Alan L. district ary continuing approximately 2001 and for for neg- Pearson dismissed Kiesau’s claims months, pho- hiring, ten Bantz showed the altered and ligent supervision, retention and tograph against County to several individuals elec- Davis and the because of others, tronically injury. mailed it lack of The including physical to Kiesau’s dis- trict court also concluded when it viewed We to. challenges review instruc- in light a most favorable to law, record tions for correction of at errors while Kiesau, law, a matter was not as she we review a court’s give refusal to damages punitive against entitled to Davis. instruction for an abuse discretion. Piper, State N.W.2d a sum- separate Bantz filed motion for mary judgment, Judge which district court H. Judge Lawrence Fautsch overruled. We sufficiency review challenge against Fautsch submitted Kiesau’s claims support evidence jury’s to verdict pri- Bantz for defamation and invasion of determine whether in substantial evidence vacy jury. to the Kiesau found supports the record jury’s findings. damages entitled defamation Dist, Cedar Falls v. Cedar Falls Sch. and of privacy invasion and awarded her (Iowa 2000). On appeal, $96,000 compensatory damages and light view evidence in the most favor- $60,000 punitive damages. Kiesau verdict, taking able into consider- Bantz appeal. ation all reasonable inferences that could fairly jury. made Id. II. Issues. claim negligent Kiesau contends her Appeal. IV.Kiesau’s
hiring, supervision, or retention is viable injury. without physical Kiesau further A. Does a claim on negligent based argues if proceed we allow her to under hiring, supervision, require or retention theory negligent hiring, supervision, physical injury? retention, genuine issue of material Citing Graves v. Iowa Com fact Lakes exists as to of punitive the issue dam- munity College, the district court dis ages against Davis. missed negligent hiring, Kiesau’s claims of Bantz contends the district court should supervision, and retention these because have granted summary his motion for causes of action do “not extend to cases judgment. He also contends district physical such this where there are no court improperly jury, instructed the (Iowa 2002). injuries.” there support was insufficient evidence to Kiesau asks us overrule Graves. the verdict. analysis, At this in our point impor- it is Scope III. of Review. tant our discussing review cases summary Our of a judgment review rul- negligent supervision, torts of hiring, *8 ing is for of at correction errors law. recognized retention. first We these Campbell 108, Delbridge, v. 670 N.W.2d Edwards, causes of action in v. Godar 588 (Iowa 2003). 110 Summary judgment is (Iowa 1999). 701, 709 These if appropriate disputed there are no issues (Second) claims are on based Restatement of material fact and the moving party is (1957). Agency § 213 pro- of Section 213 judgment entitled to as a of matter law. vides follows: 1.981(3). See Iowa R. Civ. P. On a motion person A conducting activity through an summary judgment, for we view record agents subject servants or other in light most favorable to the nonmov- liability resulting harm from con- for his ing party. Bushby Washington County v. negligent duct if he is or reckless: Bd., 494, Conservation 654 N.W.2d 496 (Iowa 2002).
172 deciding because a Graves
(b) per- in when improper of employment in the Schoff requirement is inconsistent involv- physical-injury in work or instrumentalities sons in others; characterization our broad ing risk of harm to Schoff required employee conduct. of the (c) activity; or in the of the supervision (d) prevent, permitting, failing in or Graves, our reexamining decision in On conduct negligent or other tortious in- requirement physical of we believe or or his servants persons, whether law of the in improper is an statement instru- or with agents, upon premises our in light prior of decision Schoff under his control. mentalities (Second) Agency of section Restatement were and Godar upon 213 which sepa of action are causes These Schoff 213 of reading A of section plain based. on re- from those based rate and distinct (Second) Agency re- the Restatement liability, imposes spondeat superior which injured party that no an requirement veals the acts of employers on for liability strict injury to recover physical sustain must within the employees their committed supervi- negligent hiring, a Home v. under claim employment. Van scope their 715, sion, relied on Muller, 299, or Graves 235 Ill.Dec. 705 retention. 185 Ill.2d (1998). to reach the of action and Texas law A cause Minnesota N.E.2d 905 recovery negligent su- hiring, supervision, or negligent on conclusion based injuries. injured only to recov party physical an extends pervision retention allows requires is outside the threat employee’s where conduct either er Minnesota still the em scope employment, injury because to sustain a physical of or actual facili wrongful conduct has reten- ployer’s supervision own negligent claim acts See, manner the tortious or tated some v. e.g., St. Hilaire Minco tion. Island wrongful employee. Prods., Inc., conduct 1010 F.Supp.2d 288 v. Elec. City Flying (D.Minn.2003). court, Gen. Credit Serv. A federal district (Fla.1991). Corp., So.2d however, now determined under Texas has law, if an an actionable employee commits Co. In v. Combined Insurance Schoff injury causing legally compensable tort America, necessary element we decided hiring, negligent supervision, or based supervision, negligent hiring, a claim for retention, injury necessary physical is not underlying an tort or or retention is See, e.g., cause of action. to sustain the employee. wrongful act committed Antonio, v. D’s Rest. San Verhelst Michael (Iowa 1999). Thus, (W.D.Tex. Inc., F.Supp.2d injured employee’s show party must underlying wrongful caused tort or act compensable injury, proving addition apply- At least two other federal courts reten- negligent hiring, supervision, or adopted have also the rule ing state law by the was a cause of those employer tion wrongful tort con- underlying that the Godar, injuries. N.W.2d at 708. In compensability of duct determines the words, injured prove party must other in a of action an em- injury against cause a case within a case. negligent hiring, supervision, ployer Inc., Grego Meijer, In deciding Schoff, After we de- retention. Godar and *9 Graves, applying Kentucky district court cided In we affirmed the federal Graves. stated, super- of negligent claim law tort negligent supervision “[T]he dismissal of a from necessarily vision not derive plaintiff any failed to assert does because inju- injuries. Ap- employees’ physical at 25. torts that cause physical 639 N.W.2d 689, (W.D.Ky. ry....” F.Supp.2d 187 694 parently, holding did not consider our we
173 2001). Johnson, Likewise, 1056, Hays Patton-Tully 1052, in v. 257 Iowa 135 N.W.2d Co., 518, (1965); Transportation the federal district 521 Pilgrim, Stuart v. 247 applying 709, court Tennessee law allowed a 714, 212, (1956). Iowa 74 N.W.2d 216 negligent supervision claim of when the Therefore, to the extent Graves holds a underlying employ- tort committed negligent hiring, supervision, or retention ee intentional infliction of emotional requires claim physical injury, we overrule 1221, F.Supp. distress. 844 1223-24 it. The district court not should have (W.D.Tenn.1993). granted County’s and the Davis’s motion summary judgment ground on the our prior
This rule is consistent with Kiesau did suffer any physical injury. holding Schoff, in which in- requires the jured party prove underlying tort or B. Does a genuine issue material
wrongful conduct was a par- cause of the of exist regarding recovery puni- compensable ty’s damages. 604 N.W.2d at fact of damages against tive Davis? Thus, against in of 53. a cause action an employer negligent hiring, supervision, County The any immune for retention, employer’s liability or arises for punitive claim damages. Iowa Code conduct; employer’s from the own tortious 670.4(5) (2001). Davis, however, § is liable underlying wrongful tort or conduct is punitive damages in performance a simply leading link in the causal chain duty upon showing his actual malice or compensable damages. To hold otherwise willful, wanton, and reckless misconduct. lead to would absurd results. Under the § Id. 670.12. For purposes of Iowa Code Graves, if an employer’s negligent rule “[ajctual 670.12, section malice is charac hiring, supervision, or retention caused the terized such factors personal spite, employee person to batter one assault but hatred, illof will.” Gibson ITTv. Hartford incident, only another the same (Iowa Co., 2001). Ins. 621 N.W.2d 396 battery victim would be able to willful, wanton, and reckless mis- any legally compensable recover damages conduct standard under section 670.12 is negligence employer. for the There the same as willful and wanton disre- logical explanation why is no as to rights gard for the of another standard battered victim can recover but the assault 668A.l(l)(a). found section Vlotho v. victim cannot. County, Hardin 509 N.W.2d Although acknowledge stare (Iowa 1993). Therefore, willful, wanton, decisis as a venerable doctrine that lends and reckless misconduct under section law, stability to the this does not doctrine 670.12 occurs an when “prevent the court from reconsidering, re intentionally actor has an act of done pairing, correcting, abandoning past ju disregard character in unreasonable dicial announcements when error is mani great known or risk was so obvious Co., ...” fest. Miller v. Ins. Westfield highly probable as to make it that harm (Iowa 2000). 301, 306 im N.W.2d More follow, would and which is usually thus portant, the doctrine of stare decisis by a accompanied indifference conscious should not deprive litigant legal to the consequences. right clearly defense of a because erro Id.) Equip. accord v. Kewanee Farm Fell past neous decision. v. Youn Henriksen Co., (Iowa Constr., glove 540 N.W.2d 1995); Servs., In Dep’t viewing light Kersten Co. Soc. the record in the most (Iowa 1973); Kiesau, State v. favorable to she has failed to show
174 1975). merits, a full trial on the After a genuine a of material the existence of issue denying a for sum- order motion previous consti- as to Davis’s conduct fact whether or judgment longer appealable no mary is this same actual malice. Under tuted v. N. Iowa State reviewable. See Klooster standard, ma- however, genuine a issue of 1987). (Iowa Bank, N.W.2d fact as to Davis’s terial exists whether point proceedings, in the the denial At this willful, wanton, and reck- conduct met judgment summary for motion section standard under less misconduct trial on merits where merges with the com- received numerous 670.12. Davis and trier of fact reviewed the exhibits highest- regarding Bantz from the plaints testimony to listened witnesses. his ranking department. officers in On We, therefore, to the as- decline consider occasion, rec- more than one these officers relating the denial signments error to should termination begin ommended Davis summary judgment motion for Bantz. Furness criti- procedures against in connection only consider those claims honesty, integri- Bantz lack of cized for his by raised Bantz on other issues good On more than one ty, judgment. appeal. occasion, superiors Bantz’s warned Davis hap- to waiting that Bantz a “lawsuit was B. Did court in- properly the district Despite complaints, these Davis pen.” the jury struct on Kiesau’s defamation disciplinary to any meaningful
failed take claim? against A finder action Bantz. fact could any commit- intentionally Davis to take Bantz claims the district court find failed (1) failing provide to against Bantz Bantz ted error action because permitted that a find- his A fact finder could also with instruction son-in-law. (2) defamation; ing failing a known risk of no to instruct posed find Bantz or obvious (3) parties per quod; failing that was libel to instruct on great to third so (4) opinion parody; it harm defense highly probable make would the any failing take that Kiesau was follow from Davis’s failure to instruct against public public figure. action Bantz. A finder official or limited fact could further find Davis’s conduct as a conscious the twin Defamation includes fail- consequences indifference to the of his of libel v. Cov torts and slander. Theisen reasons, to act. ure For these we must Ctr., Inc., Med. enant N.W.2d grant- reverse the district decision court’s (Iowa state Libel involves written ing summary judgment Davis’s for motion ments, while slander involves oral state punitive damages. on the issue of Nickerson, 542 ments. Johnson v. (Iowa 1996). previ As have Appeal.
V. Bantz’s ously explained, A. Did failing the district court err in law of defamation embodies the [t]he grant summary motion Bantz’s public policy that individuals should be judgment? unim- enjoy reputation free their defamatory false and attacks. paired ruling sustaining
A motion An action for defamation or slander is judgment, which summary disposes of upon right. a violation of this based case, judgment the entire is a final gravamen gist while overrul of an action for purposes appeal, an order damage plaintiffs ing summary judgment motion for is defamation is Sales, is interlocutory. reputation. reputation Inc. v. It is which Swets Motor Pruisner, defamed, injured, reputation which
175
reputation
meanings
and
which
protected by
defamatory.
is
is not
Kerndt v.
Bank,
law of defamation.
Rolling
410,
Hills Nat’l
558 N.W.2d
(Iowa 1997).
418
If the
can
language
rea
impairment
Defamation is
be
interest;
sonably
construed as having
of a
it
two mean
denigrates
relational
ings,
it
up
then
is
to the
opinion
community
jury
in the
to
which others
decide
whether the
plaintiff
per
have of the
and
statement
is
invades
libelous
se.
plaintiffs
Id.
reputation
interest
his
and
good
A
name.
cause of action for defa
In cases of
per quod,
libel
“a
mation is
on
based
the transmission
plaintiff
ordinarily prove
must
some sort of
statements,
derogatory
any physical
not
cognizable injury,
as injury
reputa
such
to
plaintiff
or emotional distress to
which
Johnson,
tion.”
Schlegel v. Ottumwa
585 N.W.2d
per quod,
on libel
plaintiff
must be able
(Iowa 1998)
217, 221
(quoting 50 Am. Jur.
more
show
than “hurt feelings.” John
2,§
2d Libel and Slander
at 338-39 son,
supports on Kiesau’s 1996). its decision (Iowa jury confirm If the 449, 452 kart, 556 N.W.2d answer having them by claim erroneous, defamation our to be instruction find an commit defendant the question: “[D]id the in The erroneous not end. inquiry does Crystal Kiesau?” plaintiff defamation Waits prejudicial. be must struction form. The verdict special in the 565, contained Co., 572 N.W.2d Fire & Cas. United affirmatively. question this jury answered 1997). (Iowa “Prejudice results when special the combined with The instruction materially mis instruction trial court’s the a jury to make clearly allowed verdict law, or misleads confuses states finding of no defamation. Anderson unduly emphasized.” is jury, or Disk, 620 City Cmty. Sch. v. Webster by failing court err Did the district 2. 2000). (Iowa 263, 268 N.W.2d per quod? libel
to instruct on provide district court 1.Did fail court the district Bantz claims instruction with an jury jury on libel instructed should have finding no permitted defama- of error is assignment quod. This per tion? requested never merit. Kiesau without her case to court submit gave court the follow the district The district theory. If she per quod jury Kiesau’s defama on a libel regarding ing instruction had, prove actual required she would claim. tion per se A libel
damage reputation. to her reputation. damage presumes action NO. 10 INSTRUCTION If the at 222. Schlegel, 585 N.W.2d claim, Plaintiff her defamation prove To li was not photograph altered found the following proposi- all of the prove must se, pre not have per she would belous tions: not at trial. Bantz is on her claims vailed altered made the 1. The Defendant plaintiff claims to dictate what entitled photograph. for consider submitted to wants the altered The Defendant showed 2. fairly repre ation. The case as submitted persons more oth- to one or photograph by Kies- theory pled of libel as sented hand de- the Plaintiff either er than in the facts contained to the applicable au livery by e-mail. record. would rea- photograph The altered 3. expres- to be an
sonably be understood failing court err Did the district 3. in- person’s attack a sion which would parody to instruct on the defense character. tegrity or moral opinion? any of prove failed to If the Plaintiff has argued in the district Parody. Bantz a. Plaintiff is not propositions, these photograph altered court that the If the Plaintiff has damages. entitled reasonably se and could be per libelous then the propositions, all of these proven argued parody. Kiesau understood to be in some damages Plaintiff is entitled un- clear and photograph was the altered amount. have the court should ambiguous, photograph a matter of law the in- found as The second to last sentence the district court se. Had per to libelous jury if Kiesau failed struction tells the the court position, Kiesau’s agreed in the in- contained prove any proposition jury on the only need to instruct struction, claim of would prove failed to her she nications, Inc., publication damages elements of per Kiesau to on her claim of recover libel adopted haveWe various factors to scenario, se. Under court this district determine whether a statement is fact or required jury- would also be to instruct the opinion. Id. These are: parody. Bantz’s affirmative defense of *13 precision 1. The specificity of the Andreas, 47, 157 at 137 Iowa N.W. at 1006. statement; The district court did not submit Kiesau’s 2. verifiability statement; The of the case in this manner. Instead, the court concluded the altered 3. literary which context the photograph susceptible was of more than statement was made. one meaning and refused to the instruct factor, context, Id. The literary third in- jury the photograph altered was libelous context,” “social cludes the which focuses per se. The court required district Kiesau category on the of the publication, style its prove “the altered photograph would audience, and intended “political and the reasonably expres- be understood to be an context” in which the statement was made. which person’s integri- sion would attack a Id. at 891-92. ty or moral language character.” This encompasses concept parody the with factors, In applying these the altered the burden on to prove Kiesau the altered is photograph precise specific in its a parody. statement was not representation person of Kiesau. A could verify easily the truth falsity To parody, jury be a the must find the photograph by simple altered inquiry altered photograph reasonably could not Finally, Kiesau. Bantz publish did not the be understood describing as actual facts photograph altered in any political context. about Kiesau actual in which events He sent the altered photo fellow em- Kiesau participated. Maga See Hustler ployees any times, Falwell, without disclaimer. At 46, 57, v. zine U.S. 485 S.Ct. 108 876, anonymously. he sent it 882, 41, (1988). these cir- 99 Under L.Ed.2d 53 Al- cumstances, it though opinion. was Failure the instructions did not specifically submit an instruction opinion mention “parody,” the word was not concept the an that the abuse discretion photograph altered because the evi- parody was a support dence did not proposed contained in the in- instructions when district Langlet, court struction. See State required jury v. 283 deter- 330, mine whether the altered 336 photograph reasonably “would be understood to be an
expression which person’s would attack a by Did district err failing court A integrity or moral character.” The in- jury to instruct the that Kiesau was correctly structions as a whole stated a public public or limited official law, did not jury, mislead the or prejudice figure? Bantz. If public Kiesau was a official Opinion. argued
b.
Bantz
public figure,
also
or a limited
she would not be
in the district court that
photo
the altered
any damages
entitled to recover
for a de
graph
per
was not libelous
se and
famatory
concerning
could be
statement
her official
reasonably understood to be
expression
conduct
presented
unless she
clear and
opinion
of his low
of Kiesau.
“Opinion
convincing proof that
the statement was
absolutely protected under
First
made
actual
with
malice. New York
Sullivan,
254,
Amendment.”
v.
279-80,
Jones
Palmer Commu- Times v.
376 U.S.
(1964).
altered
710,
686,
found the
L.Ed.2d
Once
S.Ct.
se,
per
the law
was libelous
photograph
argues
mere fact of Kiesau be-
Bantz
conclusively
existence
presumed the
public
her a
ing
police
officer makes
damages
reputation
to Kiesau’s
from
rejected the
previously
official. We have
allowed the
to award
publication and
government
all
em-
expansive view
actu
damages
proving
without
substantial
are
officials
inconsistent
ployees
public
Schlegel,
damage
reputation.
to her
al
See
plain meaning
of the standards
In
222.
addition to dam
585 N.W.2d at
Supreme
Court
announced
is also
ages
reputation,
to Kiesau’s
she
Proxmire,
Hutchinson v.
443 U.S.
injury
damages
the actual
entitled
(1979)
and Ro-
61 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
includ
libelous statement
inflicted
Baer,
383 U.S.
86 S.Ct.
senblatt
*14
humiliation,
anguish
ing
mental
personal
(1966). Jones, 440
ject liability to to the other invasion Disposition. VI. (1) of his if in privacy, light the false summary We direct the judgment en-
which other placed the be would against tered in Kiesau favor of Davis and highly person, offensive to a reasonable County the be reversed and the case re- (2) and knowledge the actor had of manded to the district court for further disregard acted in reckless as to the proceedings opinion. consistent with this falsity publicized matter the and affirm judgment against We entered light false in which other would be Bantz in favor of Kiesau. placed. PART, AFFIRMED IN REVERSED Larsen, Winegard 816, v. 260 N.W.2d 823 PART, IN AND CASE REMANDED. (Iowa 1977). trial, At the evidence used to support Kiesau’s claim defamation was the CADY, J.,
same justices except evidence used to All concur support her inva- of privacy jury sion claim. who The answered dissents. special interrogatory finding in Kies- CADY, (dissenting). Justice au’s favor on her invasion privacy claim.
Having determined district I respectfully court majority dissent. The re- properly instructed just the defa- ostensibly visits an issue we settled mation sup- years Graves, claim and substantial ago evidence over two in 639 N.W.2d defamation, ported findings 25, compen- at and now determines our unanimous satory damages, punitive damages, and we conclusions on the of negligent issue su- any need not pervision address issues raised in involv- that case were unfounded. ing privacy Kiesau’s invasion Having adopted claim. in the rule Graves that a The district court supervision instructed the claim negligent not ac- is id., determine Kiesau’s damages inju- tionable without I physical injury, be- ries she due govern- suffered to Bantz’s defama- are obligated, lieve we under the tion privacy. decisis, and invasion of The ing principle factual and apply stare basis used to establish Kiesau’s defamation follow the rule in case. this
180 error opinions, overruling only them when saying that the nearly goes
It without clearly precedent erro- is manifest and is one of the bed- doctrine of stare decisis Co., Miller v. Ins. E.g., neous. this court is built. principles rock on which Westfield 301, 2000); 306 Kersten judicial N.W.2d important restraint on It Sens., v. Dep’t Co. Soc. stability in authority and needed provides (Iowa 1973). high exceedingly 121-22 This majority The respect for the law. variously de- has standard —which been acknowledges prin- of this importance throughout this present scribed but ever ciple but fails to follow standards in history this court’s be satisfied developed protection. ensure its have —cannot case.1 our role as a we would abdicate While if failed to court of last resort we occasion- in area clear and The law this is not so n decisions, we
ally
prior
reexamine our
our
compels
that it
us to overrule
settled
weighty
only
task
must undertake this
injury
that
holding
physical
Graves
cogent
the most
reasons
hiring,
negligent
must
a claim for
underlie
,
Liddell,
greatest caution. State
at
supervision, or retention. 639 N.W.2d
(Iowa 2003).
Ultimately,
was more
25.
If the law
this area
‘importance
is even of more
truly say
“[i]t
we could
Graves was
settled —if
it
rule should be fixed and stable than that
jurisprudential
out of the
mainstream
”
strictly just.’
Hyman,
Clark v.
to over-
clearly
obligation
should
erroneous' —our
(1880)
Instead,
Iowa
turn
sever-
might
N.W.
it
be manifest.
(citation omitted). Thus,
injury
long
principles
physical
we have
al
related
ma-
requirement
remain
highest respect
prior
accorded the
our
unsettled.2
*16
court,
J.,
(Deemer,
dissenting)
imperi-
very beginnings
("great and
1. From the
of this
Smidt,
guarded
necessity”);
have
the venerable doctrine of stare
21
ous
v.
Iowa
Purczell
highest
540,
required
possible
(based
decisis and
(1866)
the "clearest con
558
on
showing
precedent
that a
should be overruled
Shelton,
272,
viction”);
v.
1 Greene
Doolittle
v,
taking
step.
before
such a
See Hildreth
erroneous”).
(1848) ("clearly
273
Tomlinson,
360,
(1849) ("To
2
361
Greene
overruling
justify
judgment
us in
a deliberate
diversity
approaches
2.
I
surmise that
of
court,
supreme
of the
made before or
whether
murky
injury
physical
rule arises from the
organization,
since our state
the decision
(Second) Agen-
of
of
intersection Restatement
erroneous.”);
appear
palpably
see
must
to be
(1958),
(Second)
cy section 213
Restatement
Inc.,
Serv.,
Channon
also
v. United Parcel
629
(1965),
of
317
the common-
Torts section
835,
(Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder-
857
theory
respondeat superior.
law
Each has
of
preference
of
is a
doctrine
stare decisis there
negli-
recovery
been cited as
basis for
upholding prior
decisions of
court.”
this
contexts,
gent hiring in various
but little effort
Miller,
(citation omitted));
181
Mills,
jority implicitly acknowledges
by
States,
this fact
v.
Inc.
United
741 F.Supp.
in
describing
1345,
(E.D.Wis.1990)
our “error” Graves in refer-
(concluding
1350
that
spectrum
ence to cases that reveal the
law,
under
employer
Wisconsin
cannot be
approaches
Grego
issue.
v.
this
See
negligent
sued for
supervision when con-
689,
Meijer,
F.Supp.2d
(W.D.Ky.
187
694
duct
not result in physical injury).
did
2001);
Michael
Verhelst v.
D’s Rest San
course,
Of
we stepped into the breach
Antonio,
Inc.,
959,
F.Supp.2d
154
968
years ago
two
and stated where we stand
(W.D.Tex.2001); Hays
Patton-Tully
Graves,
on this issue. See
639 N.W.2d at
Co.,
Transp.
F.Supp.
844
1223
case,
25. Like this
in
the claims Graves
(W.D.Tenn.1993). These cases—each of
negligent
included
supervision and defama-
court interpretation
which is a federal
Furthermore,
tion.
key
cases
cited
hardly
unsettled state
show
Graves
law—
majority
were decided before Graves.
Craemer,
“palpably
Cover v.
wrong.”
258
(decided
Grego,
F.Supp.2d
187
at 694
(1965).
29, 35,
Iowa
Verhelst,
2001);
(de-
nomic ing harm. See approach N.W.2d at a better to the resolu- (the unlimited, duty scope of may recognize but is case tion of this be to torts risk). foreseeability confined of the such as assault defamation to fit within Moreover, historically physical our law has scope injury tort been rule based on permit recovery negli- gives reluctant under a the nature of the conduct that rise to the gence theory physical injury. recognized they pro- without See torts interests Rice, Clark v. Estate 653 N.W.2d tect. Dolliver, 244 Seh. Dist. Dist. v. Consol. (1953) Iowa
(“No principle] why [a reason sufficient unanimously held sound have been
should found to years and now ago than four
less advanced.”). has been unsound majority
Additionally, declares deci- with our
Graves to be inconsistent Yet, Schojf and these Godar.
sions can as consis- all be read
three decisions
tent, I believe we are something which is Instead, possible. to do when
obligated inconsistency creates majority much Schojf far too into Go-
reading
dar. affirm the of the dis-
I would decision court. We chose our course in
trict
Graves, it are to follow in obligated and we
this case. Finley, Martin Davis of Davis &
James Omaha, NE, A. and Dean Stowers Morse, Moines, Rosenberg, Des Stowers & Iowa, Appellee, STATE appellant. General, Miller, Attorney Thomas J. Brown, C. Odell and Scott Assis- Cristen YOUNG, Appellant. Everett Drew General, Attorneys tant and Marci L. Pri- No. 03-0673. er, County Attorney, appellee. Supreme Court of Iowa. WIGGINS, Justice.
Sept. 2004. Young Drew at law fired shots enforce- attempt
ment officers in an to commit by police.” The district court con- “suicide murder, attempted him of victed assault injury, with intent inflict serious injury. appealed attempted willful He argued murder conviction. He district convicted him on a lower court standard The court required than the Iowa Code. agreed vacated the appeals convic- granted application tion. We State’s