Maurice F. Donegan

In this premises liability case, plaintiff Mary F. Lotz sued United Food Markets, Inc. for injuries sustained when she fell down a stairway in the defendant's store. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's evidence and later overruled her motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court held that no appealable judgment had been properly entered on the record and that the notice of appeal was untimely under the applicable statutes governing the time for appeal after denial of a new trial motion. The court further determined that certain evidentiary rulings were not preserved for review because no offer of proof was made and that other alleged errors were abandoned due to inadequate briefing and argument. Accordingly, the trial court's rulings were affirmed.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved an appeal from a district court order granting a further extension of the redemption period in a mortgage foreclosure action under a state moratorium statute enacted by the Forty-seventh General Assembly. The mortgagee, Prudential Insurance Co., sought to block the extension for the insolvent borrower, citing evidence that the farm's value was around $14,000 to $14,500 while the debt exceeded $26,000 and was projected to reach nearly $30,000 by the end of the extension, with no other assets available to the borrower. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the extension order, reasoning that the extreme disparity between debt and property value, combined with the borrower's financial situation and lack of any prospect for refinancing, meant the statutory purpose of allowing redemption could not be fulfilled, consistent with prior precedents like Federal Land Bank v. Wilmarth.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved Sanford Manufacturing Company suing Western Mutual Fire Insurance Company directly to recover the value of ink destroyed by fire while stored in a Des Moines warehouse operated by Fred A. Hermann. The policies included a clause permitting direct action against the insurer when service could not be obtained on the assured within Iowa, and one count of the petition relied on that provision while alleging Hermann's negligence; a second count alleged the warehouse operator's legal liability for the goods. The insurer filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss, asserting that Hermann was an Iowa resident on whom service could have been made and that the direct-action clause did not apply. The Iowa Supreme Court held that a special appearance under the statute must challenge jurisdiction over the entire action rather than only one count, and therefore affirmed the trial court's overruling of the motion.

procedure

The case involved a negligence lawsuit arising from a 1936 car collision in which plaintiff W. H. Churchill, a passenger in L. A. NaLean's vehicle, was injured when the car was struck by one driven by defendant Briggs while the two men were searching for mules to inspect. At trial the jury returned a verdict for Churchill, and Briggs appealed, arguing that the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on contributory negligence imputed through a joint enterprise and by allowing certain rebuttal testimony. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence did not establish a joint enterprise because the men lacked any agreement for shared control, profits, or operation of the vehicle and that the rebuttal evidence was properly admitted since the defendant had first introduced the conversation at issue. The court reasoned that mere shared travel for a common purpose without mutual right of control does not impute the driver's negligence to the passenger.

torts & liability

In Converse v. Converse, the plaintiff wife sued her husband for divorce on grounds of habitual drunkenness and cruel and inhuman treatment after 21 years of marriage and with six children; the trial court granted the divorce, awarded her custody and child support, a life estate in the family farm home plus personal property, and ordered the defendant to pay taxes, attorney fees, and other sums. The defendant appealed, contending that the evidence failed to prove either ground for divorce and that the property division was excessive. The appellate court examined the testimony, finding the wife's and children's accounts of the defendant's intoxication and abusive language sufficient to establish both statutory grounds while the defendant's witnesses provided only limited or negative testimony, and it upheld the divorce, custody, and most financial awards as reasonable for the family's support. However, it modified the decree to leave the remainder interest in the 43-acre tract with the defendant rather than conveying it directly to the children. As modified, the trial court's decree was affirmed.

family lawproperty

In this case, plaintiff McClure sued defendants Herman and Forest Richard after being injured when a third party's car struck the truck in which he was riding. The truck had been stopped on the shoulder of an icy highway following an initial collision with the Richards' car; after the Richards moved their vehicle off the road, McClure and the truck's driver were clearing merchandise from the pavement when the second car hit the truck and swung it into McClure. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the Richards' negligence was not the proximate cause of the injuries because the subsequent collision by the third driver constituted an efficient intervening cause that broke the chain of causation. Under the applicable proximate-cause standard, the court reasoned that injuries must follow in a natural and continuous sequence without an intervening cause, and the evidence showed that several minutes had passed and all effects of the first collision had ended before the second collision occurred.

torts & liability