Opinion
No. 3-231 / 02-1478
Filed August 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forMahaska County, Michael R. Mullins, Judge.
Brad Cubit appeals the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to defendant Mahaska County in this tort action. AFFIRMED.
Pamela Walker of Sherinian Walker Law Firm, West Des Moines, for appellants.
Carlton Salmons of Gaudineer, Comito George, L.L.P., West Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Iowa State Trooper Brad Cubit was injured at the scene of a road block when he was struck by a vehicle driven by Lloyd Hanson III. Hanson died as the result of injuries sustained in the collision.
Cubit set up the road block to assist Mahaska County deputies who were pursuing Hanson. Cubit got involved in efforts to apprehend Hanson after overhearing radio communications between a Mahaska County dispatcher and Mahaska County deputies. Within minutes after Cubit joined in the pursuit, a Mahaska County deputy radioed the dispatcher requesting assistance from the Iowa Highway Patrol.
Cubit sued Mahaska County and other named defendants to recover personal injury damages he sustained as a result of this incident. Cubit claimed the radio dispatcher negligently failed to inform him of Hanson's stated intention to kill himself and officers pursuing him. Under Cubit's theory, Mahaska County was liable for negligently training and supervising the dispatcher with whom he communicated during pursuit of Hanson.
Mahaska County denied either it or any of the county's employees were negligent or the cause of Cubit's damages. The county also claimed it was immune from liability under these circumstances, citing several theories including Iowa Code section 670.4(11) (2001), under which the county is immune from claims based on emergency response or emergency response communications.
The trial court subsequently granted the county's motion for summary judgment after determining the county was immune from liability under section 670.4(11). The trial court reasoned:
Assuming, arguendo, that there was negligent supervision and that because of the negligent supervision an E-911 employee failed to take some action which would have provided greater protection to Plaintiff, the chain of analysis is broken and the link removed by Iowa Code Section 670.4(11). Once the E-911 employee became engaged in an emergency response, or was engaged in providing emergency response communication services, there is immunity for acts and omissions during such response or delivery of services . . . .
Because that determination was dispositive, the trial court declined to address the county's remaining immunity theories. Cubit's claims against the county were therefore dismissed, resulting in this appeal.
On appeal Cubit claims Mahaska County is not immune from liability under section 670.4(11) and the trial court erroneously concluded otherwise. Cubit argues the scope of the immunity does not include a negligent supervision claim. He also argues section 670.4(11) does not apply because of his special relationship with the county.
II. Scope of Review.
We review a district court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors of law. Financial Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Hawkeye Bank Trust, 588 N.W.2d 450, 455 (Iowa 1999). Summary judgment will be upheld when the moving party shows there are no genuine issues of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 1.981(3). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Crippen v. City of Cedar Rapids, 618 N.W.2d 562, 565 (Iowa 2000).
III. The Merits. A. Negligent Supervision.
Under Iowa Code chapter 670, municipalities and counties are liable for the torts of their officers and employees, unless the tort falls within a specified listed exemption in section 670.4. Kulish v. Ellsworth, 566 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Iowa 1997). Section 670.4(11) grants immunity from liability for:
A claim based upon or arising out of an act or omission in connection with an emergency response including but not limited to acts or omissions in connection with emergency response communication services.
The supreme court has held:
[T]he language of section 670.4(11) plainly states that the only relevant inquiry in determining whether the city has immunity under the emergency response provision is whether plaintiff's claim is "based upon or arising out of an act or omission in connection with an emergency response" by officers or employees carrying out their official duties.
Kershner v. City of Burlington, 618 N.W.2d 340, 346 (Iowa 2000). Furthermore, section 670.4(11) contains broad language, "in connection with an emergency," which conveys a legislative intent to cover a wide range of situations. Adams v. City of Des Moines, 629 N.W.2d 367, 370 (Iowa 2001); Kulish, 566 N.W.2d at 891.
The dispositive question is whether Cubit's claim arose out of or in connection with an emergency. We believe a high speed chase of a fleeing criminal suspect falls within the Kulish broad definition of an emergency response. Similarly, the fact that the relevant communications were incidental to a recognized emergency response places this dispatcher's conduct squarely within the confines of Iowa Code section 670.4(11). Whether the dispatcher was negligently trained or supervised is of no consequence to the outcome because Cubit's claim and resulting injuries undeniably arose out of or in connection with that emergency.
B. Special Relationship.
We briefly note that Cubit's special relationship argument is of no aid to his theory of recovery. The plaintiff's special relationship with a municipality is a duty issue and serves as an exception to the public duty doctrine applicable under other circumstances. See Hildenbrand v. Cox, 369 N.W.2d 411, 415 (Iowa 1985); Allen v. Anderson, 490 N.W.2d 848, 856 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Mahaska County prevails on its immunity claim regardless of any duty issues implicated by Cubit's negligence theories. See, e.g., Smith v. City of Bayard, 625 N.W.2d 736, 737 (Iowa 2001) ("We deem the city's claim of immunity to be meritorious irrespective of the duty issue.").
The district court correctly determined that Mahaska County was immune from liability for Cubit's claims under the emergency response provisions found in section 670.4(11). We affirm.