 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jain v. State9/7/2000
2; McLaughlin, 461 A.2d at 124; Falkenstein v. City of Bismarck, 268 N.W.2d 787, 790 (N.D. 1978); W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts ยง 44, at 311 (5th ed. 1984). As already noted earlier in this opinion, an exception to this general rule arises from the existence of a special relationship that imposes upon the defendant the duty to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff. Cutler, 473 N.W.2d at 182. In such a case, the doctrine of intervening-superseding act will not relieve a defendant of liability. Stevens by Stevens v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 528 N.W.2d 117, 119 (Iowa 1995). That is because the intervening act (in this case, suicide) is the very risk the special duty is meant to prevent. See id. (noting it would be ironic to consider assault a superseding cause excusing a grade school for negligent breach of its supervisory duties when assault is the very risk the supervision is designed to prevent).
Here, the district court logically concluded that because no legally-recognized special relationship existed between the university and Sanjay, plaintiff could not rely on the exception to the intervening-superseding cause doctrine to counter the university's affirmative defense. We agree. Accordingly we affirm the district court's summary judgment for the State of Iowa.
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except Lavorato, J., who takes no part.
|