 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anderson v. Webster City Community School District12/20/2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Carl D. Baker, Judge.
Appeal from order by district court denying motion for new trial based on the claim of an improper jury instruction. AFFIRMED.
Considered en banc.
Melissa Anderson appeals from an order by the district court denying her motion for a new trial based on her challenge to a jury instruction. We conclude the jury instruction did not result in prejudice and affirm the decision of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Drew Anderson broke his leg while sledding during a noon recess at Pleasantville Elementary School in Webster City on February 12, 1997. He was seven years old and was in the second grade. The injury occurred when Drew fell from his sled after it went over a bump or ramp. There was conflicting evidence at trial regarding the existence and height of the ramp. Some witnesses also testified Drew was sledding on his stomach, while others testified he was sitting on his knees.
Sledding was a permissible noon-time activity at the school. However, several restrictions were imposed on the students. One restriction was that ramps were not allowed. Students were also instructed on the proper method to ride a sled. Teachers were present to supervise the sledding activity.
Melissa Anderson is the mother and legal guardian of Drew. She filed this action against the Webster City Community School District individually and on behalf of Drew, claiming the school was negligent in failing to properly supervise the sledding activity, inspect the hill for ramps, and remove the ramps from the hill. The school district asserted several affirmative defenses, including the defense that Drew assumed the risk of his injury by participating in a sledding activity.
One of the instructions given to the jury by the trial court defined the duty of care owed by sponsors of recreational activities to participants. A portion of this instruction informed the jury that " ome risk naturally attends participants in recreational activities." Anderson objected to this portion of the instruction, which the court overruled.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the school district after finding the school was not negligent. The trial court subsequently overruled Anderson's motion for a new trial based on the challenged jury instruction.
Anderson appeals the denial of her motion for a new trial. She claims the disputed instruction erroneously holds grade school children to a standard that should be limited to older students and adults engaged in sporting activities who have or should have acquired sufficient experience and knowledge to appreciate and understand inherent risks of the activity. She asserts a child of tender years does not have an understanding of inherent risk and should not be held to the same standard.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review of a challenge to a jury instruction is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 4; Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Bd. v. Shell Oil Co., 606 N.W.2d 376, 379 (Iowa 2000); Waits v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 572 N.W.2d 565, 575 (Iowa 1997); Johnson v. Johnson, 564 N.W.2d 414, 416 (Iowa 1997). Although our review is on error, we will not reverse unless "prejudicial error by the trial court has occurred." Thavenet v. Davis, 589 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Iowa 1999); see Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Bd., 606 N.W.2d at 379; Condon Auto Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Crick, 604 N.W.2d 587, 593 (Iowa 1999). The trial court commits prejudicial error when it materially misstates the law. Iowa Com
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|