From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atcher v. Flaherty

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Aug 30, 2000
No. 0-112 / 99-938 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2000)

Opinion

No. 0-112 / 99-938.

Filed August 30, 2000.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Dale B. Hagen, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court ruling granting summary judgment for defendant on their negligence claim. AFFIRMED.

Theodore R. Hoglan of Fairall, Fairall, Kaplan, Hoglan Condon, Marshalltown, for appellant.

Joel T.S. Greer of Cartwright, Druker Ryden, Marshalltown, for appellee.

Considered by Streit, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.


Overview . Plaintiffs-appellants, William and Teresa Atcher, appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, Russell Flaherty, on their negligence claim. They claim the court erred in finding there was "no evidence or deduction which can be made from the evidence . . . that defendant knew or had reason to know of any danger associated with the ladder" from which plaintiff William Atcher fell. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment

Background . William Atcher was injured after he fell from a feed-bin ladder while delivering feed to Russell Flaherty's farm. Atcher had delivered feed to Flaherty ten to fifteen times before without incident. Some of Atcher's coworkers also had delivered feed to Flaherty without slipping or falling from the ladder. Atcher contends he and his co-workers complained about the ladder to their employer, but admits neither he nor co-workers complained to Flaherty.

Atcher and his wife sued Flaherty, alleging he was negligent in failing to provide an adequate ladder on the bin and failing to warn Atcher about a dangerous condition concerning the ladder. Flaherty denied the allegations and pled affirmative defenses of Atcher's own negligence, his knowledge of and assumption of any risk, and a reasonable expectation Atcher would realize any risk and protect himself. After nearly four months of discovery, Flaherty moved for summary judgment. Atcher resisted the motion.

District court proceedings . The parties submitted affidavits, answers to interrogatories, a statement of material facts, and memoranda to the court. The affidavits revealed no one had fallen from that ladder either before or after Atcher. Flaherty denied any knowledge of a dangerous condition. The district court sustained Flaherty's motion for summary judgment, finding there was no evidence that Flaherty knew or had reason to know of any danger associated with the ladder, and that Atcher was fully aware of any such danger. The court also discussed premises liability and the application of industry standards to third parties under Iowa law.

Scope of review . Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 237(c) provides:

The [summary] judgment sought should be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

We review a summary judgment ruling for error. Benavides v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 539 N.W.2d 352, 354 (Iowa 1995). Summary judgment may be entered if the record shows "no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Iowa R. Civ. P. 237(c). Thus, "we examine the record before the district court to decide whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the court correctly applied the law." Benavides, 539 N.W.2d at 354. In doing so, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Miller, 559 N.W.2d 29, 31 (Iowa 1997). The sole test is whether there is any genuine issue as to any material fact. See Petit v. Ervin Clark Const. Co., 243 Iowa 118, 124, 49 N.W.2d 508, 512 (1951). "The court cannot weigh the credibility of the affiants." Id.

Appellate claims . The Atchers appeal, claiming the court should not have granted summary judgment. They argue the mere fact Flaherty denied knowledge of any danger associated with the ladder should not preclude them from taking the case to trial where a jury could assess his credibility. They also claim the court misapplied the law concerning premises liability and industry standards to the facts of this case. The Atchers assert the judge should have allowed the question of Flaherty's credibility and the question of comparative fault to go to the fact finder instead of ruling for Flaherty as a matter of law.

Discussion . The Atchers made claims that Flaherty was liable based on premises liability and on noncompliance with ANSI or OSHA standards. To sustain a claim based on premises liability, a plaintiff must prove (1) knowledge by the possessor of a condition on the land that involves an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees, and (2) an expectation by the possessor that the invitees will not discover or realize the danger and will fail to protect themselves against it. Ries v. Steffensmeier, 570 N.W.2d 111, 113 (Iowa 1997). An individual who is not a manufacturer is not bound by ANSI or OSHA standards absent a showing the individual had actual knowledge of a danger. Gerace v. 3-D Mfg. Co., Inc., 522 N.W.2d 312, 318 (Iowa App. 1994). Flaherty denied knowledge in his affidavit. The ladder was already attached to the feed bin when Flaherty purchased it. He made no alterations to it. Atcher did not provide anything to the court which raised a genuine issue of fact that Flaherty had knowledge of a dangerous situation with the ladder. Atcher argues the issue of Flaherty's knowledge is an issue of credibility for the fact finder, but cites no authority for that proposition. Because the court does not weigh the credibility of affiants in considering a motion for summary judgment, we will not overturn a grant of summary judgment based on a claim the fact finder should be given the opportunity to weigh an affiant's credibility.

The other major claim concerns comparative fault. Atcher knew of problems with the design of the ladder because he and coworkers had made previous deliveries to this bin. As with the credibility issue, Atcher argues comparative fault is a matter for the fact finder and not appropriate for summary judgment. However, in order to present a question of comparative fault, one must show both parties had some fault. In order for Flaherty to be at fault, he had to have knowledge. Atcher did not provide any evidence from which the court could find or infer there was a genuine issue that Flaherty had knowledge. The district court properly granted summary judgment in this case.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Atcher v. Flaherty

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Aug 30, 2000
No. 0-112 / 99-938 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2000)
Case details for

Atcher v. Flaherty

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM ATCHER and THERESA ATCHER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RUSSELL…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Aug 30, 2000

Citations

No. 0-112 / 99-938 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2000)