 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rula v. Ehrhart2/23/2000
titute Beverly Rula as a defendant. Therefore, he did not preserve this issue for appeal.
We nonetheless find there was substantial evidence in the record to indicate Leona Rankin, prior to her death, purchased the equipment, her estate later provided it for use on the two farms, and the tractor was faulty for the job it was intended for. Therefore, the evidence contained in the record is sufficient to support the submission of the instructions to the jury and deny defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
II. Remittitur.
Ehrhart next contends the district court erred in failing to order a remittitur or, alternatively, correct the judgment because Beverly and Roger Rula bore one hundred percent of the fault together. Again, this argument is based in part on Ehrhart's mistaken and unpreserved premise that the Estate's negligence was attributable to Beverly because she was the executor at the time of the accident. However, Ehrhart also claims that Roger's fault should be attributed to Beverly because he was acting as her agent. We find Ehrhart failed to preserve error on this issue. Ehrhart did not object to jury instructions which addressed the issue. Jury Instruction No. 3 in particular provided that " ny fault assigned to Roger Rula, unless it is 100 percent, will not reduce the recovery awarded to his wife or children for their consortium claims." Ehrhart did not make an agency argument until his post-trial motions. We find that his failure to timely raise the issue precludes our review of the same. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 196 (stating that all grounds or objections to instructions must be asserted prior to final arguments and further objections cannot be considered on appeal); see also Morgan v. Perlowski, 508 N.W.2d 724, 729 (Iowa 1993) ("We may only consider on appeal those objections to the instructions previously raised with the trial court.") (citation omitted).
III. Cross-appeal.
At the close of evidence, Beverly moved for a directed verdict asking for the court to determine as a matter of law that Roger was an employee of the Estate. The court denied this motion. Over Beverly's objection, an instruction was submitted to the jury on this issue. The jury concluded Roger was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the Estate, and the district court denied Beverly's post-trial motion asking it to reverse the jury on this issue. In her cross-appeal, Beverly claims the court erred in overruling her motions and objection because there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding.
We find there was substantial evidence to support the jury's decision that Roger Rula was an independent contractor. Roger kept track of his time worked, the Estate did not withhold state and federal taxes from his pay, he controlled what work would be done and when, he decided when Randy Rula would assist him for pay, and he worked without supervision or direction from anyone else. In addition to this, the Rula tax returns, schedule F, classified Roger's income as contract labor for the Rankin farms. See generally Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 537, 542 (Iowa 1997) (outlines several factors to determine employment status). Therefore, the district court did not err by denying Rula's motion for a directed verdict.
Having considered all issues properly before us on appeal, we hereby affirm the judgment of the district court.
APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL AFFIRMED.
|