 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
ESTATE OF OSWALD v. DUBUQUE COUNTY11/29/1993
e would require such supervision; and (3) breach of the statutory duty to maintain the roadway by creating an imminent danger on a public roadway and leaving the site unsupervised and unmarked.
These theories coincide with certain exceptions to the immunity otherwise granted by Iowa Code section 668.10(1). As properly pointed out in the estates' brief, three exceptions to the immunity granted by Iowa Code section 668.10(1) are generally thought to exist. The first exception is provided in [511 NW2d Page 641]
the second sentence of the statute itself — as discussed above — which creates an exception for failure to maintain a device. The second exception arises if a misleading sign has been installed. See Saunders v. Dallas County, 420 N.W.2d 468 (Iowa 1988); Hershberger v. Buena Vista County, 391 N.W.2d 217 (Iowa 1986).
A third exception is noted in Hershberger, 391 N.W.2d at 220, where the court states: "A state of facts might be envisioned, however, in which the exigencies are such that ordinary care would require the state or municipality to warn of dangerous conditions by other than inanimate devices. Such a situation would not fall within the scope of section 668.10(1)."
For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the district court's judgment granting defendant Dubuque County's motion for summary judgment is reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PERKINS, S.J., concurs.
HABHAB, J., dissents.
DONIELSON, J., takes no part.
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court.
This is indeed a tragic case. I have profound sympathy for the appellants. But, from the record before us, I believe the summary judgment test was met when it was established that there were no genuine issues of material fact.
HABHAB, Judge (dissenting).
|