Doser v. Interstate Power Company
173 N.W.2d 556, 1970 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 730 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party in a negligence action is entitled to a jury instruction on its theory that a third party's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injury, provided that theory is supported by substantial evidence.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was a fare-paying passenger on a bus operated by Interstate Power Company in Dubuque, Iowa.
- The bus was traveling between 15 and 30 miles per hour as it approached a busy intersection near a high school in the afternoon.
- A vehicle driven by Domitilla Cerjan, approaching from the opposite direction, made a left turn directly into the path of the bus.
- The bus driver applied the brakes and skidded, but the left front of the bus collided with the right front of the Cerjan vehicle.
- The entire incident developed very quickly, in two to three seconds.
- As a result of the collision and sudden braking, the plaintiff was thrown from her seat and injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against Interstate Power Company in an Iowa trial court.
- A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- Defendant Interstate Power Company filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and, alternatively, a motion for a new trial.
- The trial court denied the motion for JNOV but granted the motion for a new trial, citing its own error in the jury instructions.
- Defendant Interstate Power Company (as appellant) appealed the denial of its JNOV motion to the Supreme Court of Iowa, and Plaintiff (as cross-appellant) appealed the order granting a new trial.
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 a trial court commit prejudicial error by refusing to give a jury instruction on the defendant's theory of sole proximate cause when there is evidence that a third party's actions were the only cause of the plaintiff's injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, J.
Yes, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the defendant's theory of sole proximate cause was prejudicial error. A court must submit the theories of both parties to the jury so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. While a common carrier owes a high degree of care to its passengers, it is not an insurer of their safety. In this case, Interstate Power Company presented evidence that the sudden and improper turn by the driver of the other vehicle, Domitilla Cerjan, was the sole proximate cause of the collision. Therefore, Interstate was entitled to have the jury specifically instructed on this defense. The general instructions on proximate and concurrent cause were insufficient to cure the omission of an instruction on the distinct legal concept of sole proximate cause.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental trial principle that each party is entitled to have the jury instructed on its specific legal theories if supported by evidence. It clarifies that even defendants held to a high standard of care, like common carriers, are not precluded from arguing that a third party was 100% at fault. The decision distinguishes between concurrent causation (where multiple parties share blame) and sole proximate cause (where only one party's act is the legal cause), holding that a defendant is entitled to a specific instruction on the latter. This precedent ensures that a defendant's primary theory of defense is not lost in general causation instructions, preserving the right to a fair trial.
Unlock the full brief for Doser v. Interstate Power Company