 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Conner v. Menard10/21/2005
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff appeals and defendant cross-appeals from judgment in premises-liability case. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
Brandy Conner was injured when a bundle of insulation fell on her at a Menard, Inc. store in Ankeny. Conner sued Menard on a theory of premises liability, and the jury returned a verdict finding Conner twenty percent and Menard eighty percent at fault. The jury assessed damages of $281,000. On Menard's posttrial motions, the court ordered a remittitur of $150,000. Conner appealed, based on the remittitur order, and Menard cross-appealed on the grounds the district court erred in certain evidence rulings and in submitting the case to the jury on both specific allegations of negligence and res ipsa loquitur. The court of appeals reversed on the last issue and remanded for a new trial; it did not address the evidence or damage issues. On further review, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand for a new trial.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
On July 13, 1999, Brandy and her husband, Jody, bought some home insulation from Menard and drove to the rear of the store to load it into their pickup. A Menard employee climbed up a divider separating stacks of insulation estimated to be fifteen- to eighteen-feet high. Another employee asked the Conners to put down the tailgate and open up the topper on their pickup so the insulation could be loaded. As the Conners were getting the pickup ready, Jody testified, "there was a loud noise, and then I just . . . . When I stepped back, I noticed that there was a bundle of insulation on top of my wife." According to him, the insulation bundle weighed seventy-five to one hundred twenty-five pounds and fell fifteen to eighteen feet. Neither Brandy nor her husband actually saw the bundle fall.
The plaintiff sued Menard, alleging specific acts of negligence and general negligence, or res ipsa loquitur (res ipsa). She claimed past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of function, and loss of income and earning capacity.
On appeal we do not address the district court's rulings on evidence or damages because we agree with the court of appeals that the case must be reversed and retried because of the res ipsa issue.
III. Analysis
"Res ipsa loquitur (Latin for 'the thing speaks for itself') is a type of circumstantial evidence," which permits a jury to circumstantially infer the cause of the injury "from the naked fact of injury, and then to superadd the further inference that this inferred cause proceeded from negligence." Clinkscales v. Nelson Secs., Inc., 697 N.W.2d 836, 847 (Iowa 2005) (quoting Benedick v. Potts, 40 A. 1067, 1069 (Md. 1898)). We have said that,
f "there is no direct evidence to show cause of injury, and the circumstantial evidence indicates that the negligence of the defendant is the most plausible explanation for the injury," res ipsa loquitur applies.
Brewster v. United States, 542 N.W.2d 524, 529 (Iowa 1996) (citation omitted). In Iowa plaintiffs are permitted to plead, and trial courts are permitted to consider, both specific negligence and res ipsa in some cases. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Thermogas Co., 620 N.W.2d 819, 831 (Iowa 2000); Reilly v. Straub, 282 N.W.2d 688, 693-94 (Iowa 1979).
Our cases have been very circumspect in their application of res ipsa. For example, the doctrine does not apply if the instrumentality of injury is under the sequential, as opposed to the simultaneous, control of more than one defen
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.
|
|