Kathryn Winger and Timothy Potts vs. CM Holdings, L.L.C.
Filed June 24, 2016 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The violation of a specific safety requirement in a municipal ordinance that has the force of law can constitute negligence per se. An administrative agency's finding of a code violation does not have preclusive effect in a subsequent tort action if the party lacked an adequate incentive to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.
Facts:
- The Grand Stratford Apartments were built in 1968 with 32-inch high balcony railings, which complied with the housing code at that time.
- In 1979, the Des Moines municipal code was amended to require 42-inch railings for new construction, but it included a grandfather provision allowing existing compliant structures to remain.
- In 2009, the previous owner, Mark Critelli, attached 48-inch high white plastic lattice to the original 32-inch iron railings with zip ties.
- On February 15, 2011, CM Holdings acquired a controlling interest in the apartment complex.
- A city inspector, Eddie Leedom, cited CM Holdings for a guardrail height violation, reasoning that the addition of the plastic lattice was an alteration that voided the railings' grandfathered status.
- On July 13, 2011, the Des Moines Housing Appeal Board (HAB), at the request of CM Holdings, granted a three-month extension to install compliant railings and suspended a $1,090 fine.
- On July 23, 2011, twenty-one-year-old Shannon Potts, while intoxicated, fell over a 32-inch railing on a second-floor balcony and died from her injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathryn Winger and Timothy Potts (plaintiffs) sued CM Holdings, L.L.C. (defendant) in district court for wrongful death.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the district court deferred ruling on until trial.
- At trial, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence, ruling as a matter of law that CM Holdings' failure to install 42-inch railings was negligence per se.
- The jury found CM Holdings 65% at fault and the decedent 35% at fault, awarding damages which were reduced by the decedent's comparative fault.
- CM Holdings filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial.
- The district court granted the motion for a new trial, reversing its trial ruling and concluding that a violation of a local ordinance could not support a negligence per se instruction.
- Both parties appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs were appellants and CM Holdings was the appellee/cross-appellant.
- The court of appeals, in a divided decision, affirmed the district court's order for a new trial.
- Both parties sought, and the Iowa Supreme Court 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 a landlord's violation of a specific municipal housing code safety requirement, such as guardrail height, constitute negligence per se in a subsequent wrongful-death action?
Opinions:
Majority - Waterman, Justice.
Yes, the violation of a specific safety-related requirement in a municipal ordinance with the force of law may constitute negligence per se. The court holds that the doctrine is not limited to statewide statutes and explicitly overrules prior case law suggesting otherwise. The purpose of the ordinance requiring 42-inch guardrails is to protect individuals like Shannon Potts from falling, placing her squarely within the class of persons the ordinance was designed to protect. The court reasoned that there is no sound policy basis to distinguish between state statutes and specific local safety ordinances for the purpose of establishing a standard of care. However, the court also found that the district court erred by instructing the jury that the violation was established as a matter of law. The HAB's prior finding of a violation does not have preclusive effect (collateral estoppel) because CM Holdings lacked an adequate incentive to litigate the grandfathering issue in the administrative proceeding, where only a suspended $1,090 fine was at stake. Finally, the HAB's extension of time to make repairs does not serve as a legal excuse for tort liability; it only suspends administrative penalties.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Iowa negligence law by explicitly extending the doctrine of negligence per se to violations of municipal ordinances, overruling the contrary suggestion in Griglione v. Martin. This holding strengthens the legal force of local safety codes and provides a clearer path for plaintiffs injured by such violations. The opinion also provides an important limitation on the doctrine of offensive issue preclusion, establishing that an un-appealed administrative finding will not be binding in subsequent, high-stakes civil litigation if the party lacked a sufficient incentive to fully and fairly litigate the issue in the administrative forum. This protects defendants from the disproportionate consequences of decisions made in low-stakes regulatory matters.
Unlock the full brief for Kathryn Winger and Timothy Potts vs. CM Holdings, L.L.C.