Anderson v. State
2005 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 24, 692 N.W.2d 360, 2005 WL 323814 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governmental employee's decision falls under the discretionary function exception to tort liability when it involves an element of judgment and that judgment is grounded in considerations of public policy, such as social, economic, or political factors.
Facts:
- On the evening of February 8, 2001, a winter storm caused icy conditions on the campus of the University of Northern Iowa.
- Kecia Anderson was studying at the university library, which was scheduled to close at midnight.
- Concerned library staff contacted the interim dean, Marilyn Mercado, at home between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. to inquire if the library should close early due to the weather.
- Mercado considered the university's policy to maintain normal hours during severe weather, the number of patrons in the library (30-35), and staff availability.
- Mercado decided to keep the library open, allowing students and staff to make their own decisions about leaving.
- At approximately 11:55 p.m., Anderson left the library, slipped on ice immediately outside the building's overhang, and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Kecia Anderson filed a petition in district court against Marilyn Mercado and the State of Iowa, alleging negligence.
- At the close of Anderson's evidence during the jury trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the claim related to not closing the library, arguing discretionary function immunity.
- The district court (trial court) granted the directed verdict for the defendants on the library closure claim.
- A separate premises liability claim went to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the State.
- Anderson appealed the directed verdict to the Iowa Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the decision to keep the library open was not protected by discretionary function immunity.
- The State of Iowa then sought, and the Supreme Court of Iowa granted, further review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discretionary function exception to the Iowa Tort Claims Act immunize a state university from liability for a dean's decision to keep a campus library open during a winter storm?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiggins, Justice.
Yes, the decision to keep the library open is immune from liability under the discretionary function exception. This exception protects governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy. The university had a policy to continue normal operations during severe weather to maximize facility availability for students, which is a public policy goal related to providing education. Mercado's decision was not merely an ad hoc operational choice; she balanced competing factors such as the university's educational mission, the number of students using the facility, and the reported weather conditions, which constitutes the kind of policy-based judgment the exception is designed to shield from tort liability.
Concurring - Streit, Justice
I concur in the result but would not reach the discretionary function issue. The defendants did not have a legal duty to close the library in the first place, nor was it shown that keeping the library open was the proximate cause of the injury. A public establishment like a library or shopping center does not have a general duty to close its doors every time a potential hazard arises from people coming and going.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the discretionary function exception in Iowa, distinguishing between policy-based judgments and routine operational decisions. It establishes that a decision implementing a pre-existing public policy (like maintaining access to educational facilities) is protected, even if made by a lower-level employee in response to specific circumstances. The ruling reinforces that immunity applies when an employee genuinely weighs social, economic, or political factors, providing a shield for governmental entities making judgment calls that balance public service with safety risks. This precedent will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue government bodies for operational decisions that can be linked to broader public policy objectives.
