Hendricks v. Broderick
284 N.W.2d 209, 1979 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1025 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Merely by voluntarily participating in an activity that carries inherent risks, a plaintiff does not assume the risk of another participant's negligence; the defense of contributory negligence must be based on whether the plaintiff's conduct, under the specific circumstances, fell below the standard of an ordinarily prudent person.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Billy R. Hendricks, an experienced turkey hunter, went hunting in Shimek Forest in southeast Iowa on May 1, 1976.
- Defendant Edward D. Broderick, also an experienced turkey hunter, independently entered the same dense, dark forest with a companion on the same morning.
- Broderick heard a tom turkey gobbling and began imitating a hen yelp, attempting to entice the bird closer.
- Broderick observed a 'flash or movement' in the dense underbrush approximately 30 yards away.
- After waiting, Broderick saw the movement again about 25-30 yards further away (totaling about 60 yards), and believing it was the tom turkey, he shot.
- Broderick's shot struck Hendricks.
- After the incident, Broderick asked Hendricks if he had heard him calling the turkey, and Hendricks responded yes, adding that he thought Broderick was calling 'too loud'.
- Broderick testified that he did not intend to shoot at Hendricks or any other person and that he accidentally shot Hendricks.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Billy R. Hendricks and his spouse sued Defendant Edward D. Broderick in district court for compensatory damages.
- The plaintiffs' suit included two counts: one for negligence and another for gross negligence and recklessness, also requesting exemplary damages.
- The trial court submitted the case to the jury only on the negligence count, declining to submit the gross negligence/recklessness claim or the request for exemplary damages.
- The trial court instructed the jury on Broderick's defense of contributory negligence, including language that Hendricks was negligent 'in that he placed himself in a position of assuming whatever risk there would be when he voluntarily went turkey hunting in Shimek Forest.'
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Broderick.
- Hendrickses appealed the jury's verdict and the trial court's instructions to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on contributory negligence by stating that the plaintiff was negligent merely by 'placing himself in a position of assuming whatever risk there would be when he voluntarily went turkey hunting,' thereby allowing the jury to find contributory negligence without assessing the plaintiff's conduct against the standard of an ordinarily prudent person under the specific circumstances, including the assumption that other hunters would exercise due care?
Opinions:
Majority - Uhlenhopp, Justice
Yes, the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on contributory negligence. The court clarified that while Hendricks, by voluntarily hunting, accepted the natural hazards of turkey hunting (e.g., dense forest, animal behavior) without culpability on the part of other hunters, he did not assume the risk of another hunter's negligence. Assumption of risk related to a defendant's negligence is not a separate defense but is subsumed within contributory negligence, which must be submitted in terms of the conduct of an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances. The correct inquiry for contributory negligence was whether Hendricks, if he knew or in the exercise of due care should have known that Broderick was working a turkey at the location, acted as an ordinarily prudent person in entering that place. The instruction given, however, permitted the jury to find contributory negligence simply if Hendricks "placed himself in a position of assuming whatever risk there would be when he voluntarily went turkey hunting." The court cited Gross v. Miller to emphasize that "Men go hunting every day, and no one reasonably anticipates that, as a result, one will negligently shoot the other." Hendricks had a right to assume, until he knew or should have known otherwise, that other hunters would exercise due care. This error on a vital point necessitated a reversal and remand for retrial. The court also affirmed the trial court's correct refusal to direct a verdict for Hendricks on liability, recognizing that negligence and contributory negligence are typically jury questions. Furthermore, the court reiterated that Iowa does not recognize degrees of negligence for liability purposes (like gross negligence) and found insufficient evidence to support a claim for recklessness or exemplary damages.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between assuming the inherent risks of an activity and assuming the risk of another's negligence. It establishes that merely participating in a recreational activity does not, by itself, constitute contributory negligence or an assumption of risk for another's careless actions. The ruling reinforces the principle that individuals are generally entitled to assume others will exercise due care unless there is a specific reason to believe otherwise. This decision has significant implications for personal injury cases arising from recreational activities, ensuring that a plaintiff's right to recovery is not barred simply by engaging in a sport or pastime, but rather requires an assessment of their specific conduct against a reasonable person standard in relation to the defendant's alleged negligence.
