Opinion
No. 0-257 / 99-1132.
Filed September 13, 2000.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Gary G. KIMES, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal an adverse verdict in a products liability action based on a fall from a ladder. AFFIRMED.
Marc S. Harding, Des Moines, for appellants.
William W. Graham of the Graham Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and STREIT and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Plaintiffs-appellants Richard Roerig and Cindy Roerig appeal from a district court decision dismissing their products liability and negligence action against defendants-appellees Stinson Sales Corporation and Stinson Manufacturing Company. Plaintiffs contend they should have a new trial because the district court incorporated the defendants' proposed findings of fact in its decision, and the court's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
In July 1995, plaintiff Richard Roerig rented ladder jacks from Des Moines Rental Sales Service, Inc. The jacks were manufactured by defendant Stinson Manufacturing Company and sold by defendant Stinson Sales Corporation. Richard used the ladder jacks to create a scaffold, using two ladders and an aluminum plank. The scaffolding collapsed, Richard fell to the ground, and was injured.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Stinson Manufacturing, Stinson Sales, and Des Moines Rental, claiming the ladder jacks were defective in manufacture or design. After the accident, one of the ladder jacks had an enlarged bolt hole opening. Plaintiffs claimed the ladder jacks were defective in that continued use caused the enlarged bolt hole opening, allowing a bolt and bracket to become loose and causing the scaffold to collapse. Defendants claimed the scaffold fell after one of the ladder legs slipped. Defendants argued the enlarged bolt hole opening occurred when the ladder jack hit the ground. Both parties presented expert testimony to support their theories.
Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Des Moines Rental, and they are not a party to this appeal.
The case was heard by the district judge, who asked the parties to present proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court in its ruling then incorporated verbatim most of defendants' proposed findings and conclusions and determined the evidence did not support plaintiffs' theory, and dismissed plaintiffs' claims.
Plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b) and for new trial. They later withdrew their 179(b) motion. The district court overruled the motion for new trial.
Our scope of review in this tort action is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 4.
Plaintiffs contend the district court improperly adopted defendants' proposed findings and conclusions as its own ruling. They assert the court did not engage in an independent review of the evidence. Plaintiffs ask for a new trial before a jury.
We do not encourage the practice of adopting verbatim the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by one of the parties. Care Initiatives v. Board of Review, 500 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Iowa 1993). The practice has been sharply criticized because it gives the appearance the court has abdicated its role of fact-finder and decision-maker. Kroblin v. RDR Motels, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 430, 435 (Iowa 1984). Trial judges should refrain from wholesale, or near wholesale, adoption of a proposed decision. In re Marriage of Siglin, 555 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa App. 1996).
A judge-written opinion enhances the quality of the decision, assures litigants their claims were fully and fairly considered, and allows appellate courts to readily ascertain the bases for the decision. Kroblin, 347 N.W.2d at 435. Thus, ideally the proposed findings and conclusions should be a guide, with selected portions incorporated into the independent thoughts of the judge. Siglin, 555 N.W.2d at 849. The court should pick and choose those portions of the proposed findings and conclusions which better fit its own concept of the case. Williamson v. Wellman Fansteel, 595 N.W.2d 803, 806 (Iowa 1999) (citations omitted).
If the district court does, however, adopt verbatim the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by a party, as happened here, we do not apply a separate standard of review. See Care Initiatives, 500 N.W.2d at 16.
Plaintiffs sought a new trial, in part, based on a claim of irregularity in the proceedings of the court due to the district court's adoption of defendants' proposed findings and conclusions. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 244(a). Plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial on this ground. The verbatim adoption of proposed findings and conclusions is looked upon with disfavor, but does not support a claim for a new trial. See generally Quality Refrigerated Servs., Inc. v. City of Spencer, 586 N.W.2d 202, 205 (Iowa 1998).
Plaintiffs next claim the district court decision is not supported by substantial evidence. They assert their experts, James Meehan, a licensed engineer, and Larry Hanke, a licensed metallurgist, were more credible than defendants' expert, Edwin C. Burdette, a professor of civil engineering. Plaintiffs also contend the evidence does not support defendants' theory of the accident.
Defendants contend plaintiffs failed to preserve error on this issue because they voluntarily withdrew their 179(b) motion. We disagree. Plaintiff preserved error by raising in their motion for new trial a claim that the decision was not sustained by sufficient evidence. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 244(f).
It was within the province of the fact-finder to decide what weight to give expert testimony. Johnson v. Knoxville Community School Dist., 570 N.W.2d 633, 640 (Iowa 1997). The fact-finder was free to accept or reject evidence on this or any other issue. Blume v. Auer, 576 N.W.2d 122, 125 (Iowa App. 1997).
There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court's conclusions. Defendants' expert gave the opinion one of the ladders slipped, which caused the scaffolding to fall. By placing the ladder on the floor in the courtroom, he showed how the impact of the fall could have caused the enlarged bolt hole opening in the ladder jack. Burdette also testified that even if the ladder jack had failed in the manner claimed by plaintiffs' expert, Meehan, the aluminum plank would not have fallen from the ladders. Meehan had testified the broken ladder jack could not support the weight of a person. Burdette created a demonstration in the courtroom using two ladders, the broken ladder jack, another ladder jack, and an aluminum plank. Defense counsel then showed the scaffold could support him without falling. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial. There is substantial evidence to support the verdict.
We affirm the decision of the district court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs.
AFFIRMED.