Jennifer Morris, Individually and as the Administrator for the Estate of Daulton Holly, and Jason Allan Holly
v.
Legends Fieldhouse Bar and Grill, LLC, Pretty Women Inc., d/b/a The Beach Girls, J.P. Parking, Inc., James E. Petry, ABC Corp., a fictitious corporation and Ronald Paul Hauser
In this premises liability case, Pretty Women, Inc., d/b/a The Beach Girls, J.P. Parking, Inc., and James E. Petry, the defendants/appellees, seek further review of the court of appeal decision reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment in their favor. Relying on Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829, 834 (Iowa 2009), which authorizes the incorporation of policy considerations in the duty analysis only after foreseeability is removed from the equation, the court of appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment ruling and remanded for further proceedings because the district court did not remove foreseeability from its analysis in finding the defendants’ duty of care ceased when the victim voluntarily left the premises.
Resister
Jennifer Morris, Individually and as the Administrator for the Estate of Daulton Holly, and Jason Allan Holly
Applicant
Legends Fieldhouse Bar and Grill, LLC, Pretty Women Inc., d/b/a The Beach Girls, J.P. Parking, Inc., James E. Petry, ABC Corp., a fictitious corporation and Ronald Paul Hauser
Attorneys for the Resister
Christopher D. Stombaugh
Tiffany R. Wunderlin
R. Craig Oppel
Attorneys for the Applicant
Adam Zenor
Sean M. Corpstein
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Jan 21, 2021 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (5 pages)
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on the plaintiffs’ negligence suit, contending the district court “erroneously considered foreseeability as a factor to determine duty.” OPINION HOLDS: Because foreseeability was not removed from the equation, we reverse the summary judgment ruling and remand for further proceedings.