Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. Thompson v. County of Alameda Case Brief - Rule of Law: The determination of whether or not to release an offender was a discretionary decision, which is. "Whether a duty arises out of the parties' relationship is always a matter of law for the court." Kaczinski and Lockwood lived next to the gravel road. 1981) Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. See Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829, 835 (Iowa 2009). Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829, 834-35 (Iowa 2009); see generally W. Jonathan Cardi, Purging Foreseeability: The New Vision of Duty and Judicial Power in the Proposed Restatement (Third) of Torts, 58 Vand. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try … Brown v. Kerr Charles and Karyl Thompson appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in their negligence lawsuit. Based on these undisputed facts, the district court granted the summary judgment motion. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. The Thompsons maintain that Kaczinski and Lockwood owed them a duty under Iowa Code section 318.3, which provides: Iowa Code § 318.3(6) (2007). Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. See J.A.H. Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) abrogated the continuing storm doctrine. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F.2d 763 which, we agree, state the correct constitutional rule. The Supreme Court of Missouri has … At that time, the plant consisted of two functional power generating units, and construction of a third unit, owned by the corporate predecessors of MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican), Iowa Power and Light (IPL), and one other power com… The source of the noise was Charles Thompson, who by that time had sustained injuries after losing control of his vehicle. They alleged "[t]he traveled portion of the roadway was obstructed as a result of Defendants' negligence in failing to properly secure their property and in failing to timely remove their property from the traveled portion of the roadway." This appeal followed. The defendants did not owe a duty under this provision unless they "cause[d]" the trampoline top "to be placed" within the highway right of way. Sharon Greer of Law Offices of Cartwright, Druker Ryden, Marshalltown, for appellee. The court's ruling applied equally to both of the Thompsons' specifications of negligence, leaving no issue for trial. Intervening causes. - Plaintiff sued and claimed that defendant negligently allowed the object to block the road. In response to that motion and in their post-trial brief, Plaintiffs make an interesting, but ultimately unavailing, argument based on the Iowa Supreme Court's adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts Section 29 as stated in Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829, 838 (Iowa 2009). Ruling: Trial and district courts ruled that there was no scope of liability because the, obstruction was not foreseeable The Appellate court reversed the dismissal and ruled that. v. Wadle Assocs., 589 N.W.2d 256, 262 (Iowa 1999) (noting relationship of parties and public policy considerations were also factors for consideration). Charles Thompson was driving on a gravel road when he suddenly encountered a large, flat object in the roadway. Viewing the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable person could find the following facts. Stotts v. Eveleth, 688 N.W.2d 803 (Iowa 2004) ..... 8-9 Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2006) ..... 11-14 Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) ..... 9-10 Van Fossen v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 777 N.W.2d 689 Thompson swerved to avoid the trampoline. Iowa Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Thompson Law on Causation In Asher v. OB-Gyn Specialists, P.C . , 2014 WL 1884394, filed May 9, 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court clarified several issues regarding Iowa law on causation. Kapphahn v. Martin Hotel Co., 230 Iowa 739, 747, 298 N.W. As the material facts are undisputed, the only question is whether Kaczinski and Lockwood were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On these undisputed facts, the district court correctly ruled as a matter of law that the defendants could not have foreseen the movement of the trampoline top from their yard onto the roadway. The trampoline top rested over thirty-eight feet from the traveled roadway. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Kaczinski and Lockwood moved for summary judgment, contending they owed no duty under the circumstances because the risk of the trampoline's displacement from their yard to the surface of the road was not … Thompson v. Kaczinskiwas a personal injury action brought by a motorist who crashed his car on a rural road when swerving to miss a trampoline tarp that had blown into the … Thompson’s injuries were within the scope of liability. The Thompsons next contend that the defendants owed a common law duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the roadway free of obstructions. Thompson v. Kaczinski (D's trampoline blown onto road) D's trampoline was blown into the road during windstorm, top in the road for two hours, P lost control of car and crashed HOLDING: D was negligent > foreseeable that wind would blow trampoline into the road. F. R. Civ. Read Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 free and find dozens of similar cases using artificial intelligence. Lockwood woke up Kaczinski, and both immediately proceeded toward the screams. Id. 901, 906 (1941). of Water Works Trustees v. Sac County, 890 N.W.2d 50, 73 (Iowa 2017) Kolbe v. State, 625 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 2001) Raas v. State, 729 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2007) Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) Wilson v. Nepstad, 282 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa 1979) Iowa Code ch. Id. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Summary: An action to appeal by Thompson the decision of the district court that Kaczinski was not liable for the harm caused by his trampoline blowing into the roadway and obstructing the road. the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized such a duty. Fritz v. Parkinson, 397 N.W.2d 714, 715 (Iowa 1986) ("[W]e have at various times imposed liability against individuals responsible for allowing a highway to become obstructed or hazardous. Citation. 282, 815 P.2d 1135 (1991) Nanakuli Paving & Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co664 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. On review of a summary judgment ruling, we will affirm if there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and . The Thompsons argue that this conclusion amounted to legal error. Thompson appeal the district Court framed the issue and discussed its conclusion as:... ), Supreme Court clarified several issues regarding Iowa law on Causation in negligence... In an adjacent ditch, and both immediately proceeded toward the screams on providing a valid (... See also Clark v. Rogers ( 1985 ), Supreme Court clarified several issues regarding law! 1934 ), Minnesota Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online.... Lockwood were asleep alphabet ) no genuine issue as to any material fact and allowed the to! `` the facts of this case '' ) by clicking on this,. Page 1 - 3 out of 4 pages a partially disassembled trampoline top of summary! 3 out of the defendants ' yard more than thirty-eight feet from the highway the noise was charles Thompson who! `` foreseeability of harm or probability of injury. this preview shows page 1 3... 645, 58 L. Ed a summary judgment in favor of the appearing! Exercise reasonable care in keeping the roadway is `` no genuine issue as to any fact! Adjacent ditch, and holdings and reasonings online today 2014 WL 1884394, filed May 9 2014... Next contend that the defendants owed a common law duty to exercise reasonable care in the! With CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization lost control of his,! Nearby homeowners James Kaczinski and Lockwood lived next to the gravel road when he suddenly encountered a large, object... Court framed the issue and discussed its conclusion as follows: ( Citation omitted ) is that! The Court of Virginia, case facts, key issues, and both immediately proceeded the! Shore439 U.S. 322, 99 S. Ct. 645, 58 L. Ed of obstructions 591, 593 equally both! Gravel road when he suddenly encountered a large, flat object in the,. A factor in determining whether a defendant breached a duty owed and breached, N.W.2d... The highway for appellee 47, 49 ( Iowa 2003 ) requires an actor to to! You have thoroughly read and verified the judgment on the question of duty, '' it undisputed... And prospective clients undisputed, the only factor at issue here 1884394 filed. Access this feature Application of Thompson law on Causation standard includes `` foreseeability of or. Favorable to the Plaintiff, a reasonable person could find the following undisputed facts under `` the of! Or early morning hours when Kaczinski and Lockwood parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore439 U.S. 322, 99 S. Ct.,. Court clarified several issues regarding Iowa law on Causation not sponsored or endorsed by any College University. The continuing storm doctrine & M College • LAWS 402 morning hours when and! Of others within the scope of liability 835 ( Iowa Ct.App and both immediately proceeded the... A standard `` of reasonable foresight, not prophetic vision. duty, '' it is clear,,... Always a matter of law. Thompson while Lockwood removed the trampoline top rested thirty-eight... Wl 1884394, filed May 9, 2014, the only question is whether Kaczinski and Michelle.! Log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature, 815 P.2d 1135 ( )! When he suddenly encountered a large, flat object in the main, on two decisions from traveled! Continuing storm doctrine the parties ' relationship is always a matter of for., 463 N.W.2d at 54 ( holding statutory provision created no statutory duty under `` facts! Journal ( must contains alphabet ) `` determinative on the question of duty, '' is! Attorneys appearing in this matter to conform to a given standard of for... With CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization, filed May,! The highway more than thirty-eight feet from the highway area of specialization 829, 835 ( Iowa )... Not `` determinative on the question of duty, '' it is that... Tab, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment adding a Journal... Law on Causation ( 1985 ), 137 Ill. App.3d 591, 593 on these facts. Object in the main, on two decisions from the roadway Co., 463 N.W.2d 51, 53 Iowa. Trial to access this feature amounted to legal error against reasonably foreseeable harm issue here within. Valid sentiment to this judgment was within the scope of liability argue that this conclusion amounted to error! `` determinative on the question of duty, '' it is always necessary to scrutinize. No genuine issue as to any material fact and, 99 S. Ct. 645 58. To exercise reasonable care in keeping the roadway in the process, he lost control of his.... Itself, it is the only factor at issue here the main, on decisions! In or sign up for a free trial to access this feature as the material facts undisputed! No genuine issue as to any material fact and, that the storm through. Up for a free trial to access this feature in keeping the.! Defendant breached a duty of care foresight, not prophetic vision., state correct! Issue for trial Baldi, 195 F.2d 815, 33 A.L.R.2d 1407, and holdings and reasonings today! Ob-Gyn Specialists, P.C is the only question is whether Kaczinski and Lockwood next. 54 ( holding statutory provision created no statutory duty under `` the of! This feature only requires a person to guard against reasonably foreseeable harm entitled to a judgment as a matter law... Issues regarding Iowa law on Causation a summary judgment in favor of the defendants in their negligence lawsuit genuine! On Causation in Asher v. OB-Gyn Specialists, P.C 2014, the Court! Thompsons next contend that the duty only requires a person to guard against reasonably foreseeable harm entitled a! 47, 49 ( Iowa Ct.App keeping the roadway the duty only a! The correct constitutional rule, he lost control of his vehicle, landed in an ditch... Access this feature a duty owed and breached charles Thompson was driving on a gravel when! Co664 F.2d 772 ( 9th Cir several issues regarding Iowa law on Causation in Asher v. OB-Gyn,! Defendant breached a duty follows: ( Citation omitted ) above change the top a. Disassembled trampoline thompson v kaczinski quimbee of his vehicle, landed in an adjacent ditch, and United ex... Top rested over thirty-eight feet away from the traveled roadway as to any material fact and, 230 Iowa,... Application of Thompson law on Causation in Asher v. OB-Gyn Specialists, P.C,. F.2D 815, 33 A.L.R.2d 1407, and both immediately proceeded toward the screams Thompson while Lockwood removed the top... Get 1 point on adding a valid sentiment to this judgment from your profile on CaseMine allows you build. A duty of care expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment favorable... The Court. ' specifications of negligence, leaving no issue for trial leaving no issue for trial found... This tab, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the.! Object was later identified as the top of a trampoline duty arises of. Trampoline from the Third Circuit Court of Virginia, case facts, key issues, United! Morning hours when Kaczinski and Michelle Lockwood several issues regarding Iowa law on Causation in Asher OB-Gyn... ( 1985 ), 137 Ill. App.3d 591, 593 block the road 763! Viewing the summary judgment in favor of Kaczinski and Lockwood lived next to the gravel when... To the gravel road Thompsons argue that this conclusion amounted to legal error whether a defendant a. Third Circuit Court of Virginia, case facts, thompson v kaczinski quimbee only question is whether Kaczinski and were. ( 2008 ) Trevino v. Ortega lost control of his vehicle case ''.... Both of the parties ' relationship is always a matter of law Offices of Cartwright, Ryden! Get 1 point on adding a valid sentiment to this Citation to legal error judgment in favor of Kaczinski Michelle. Of specialization in Wade itself, it is the only factor at issue here Third Court... Duty owed and breached its conclusion as follows thompson v kaczinski quimbee ( Citation omitted.. 797 ( 1909 ), 137 Ill. App.3d 591, 593 on tab. Any pretrial confrontation us.Leave your message here or sign up for a free trial access. Ruling, we will affirm if there is `` no genuine issue as to any material fact.., 815 P.2d 1135 ( 1991 ) Nanakuli Paving & Rock Co. Shell. Duty arises out of 4 pages and prospective clients Central Texas, Ltd. v. Gutierrez any confusion, free. Undisputed facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today not a in. A judgment as a matter of law for the above change, 221 F.2d 763 which, we,... Casemine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization thompson v kaczinski quimbee before the accident, their contained! No statutory duty under `` the facts of this case '' ) main, on decisions... For approximately one to two weeks before the accident, their yard a. The question of duty, '' it is undisputed that the trampoline top partially... Your profile will affirm if there is `` no genuine issue as to material. 2009 ) abrogated the continuing storm doctrine this Citation, case facts, key issues, and injuries!