Please visit my author page at amazon.com
Laura H. Fulps and Charles B. Fulps v. City of Urbandale. Iowa Municipal Liability: Public-Duty Doctrine
This Polk County, Iowa, case addresses the public-duty doctrine, which the Iowa Supreme Court summarized as follows:
Cities in Iowa have a statutory and common law duty to build and maintain the public sidewalks in safe condition and for breach of that duty have historically been subject to suit. This historic rule is not at odds with the public-duty doctrine. Generally, that doctrine comes into play when a governmental entity fails to take action (nonfeasance) with respect to a third party-typically by failing to exercise statutory authority with respect to the third party's activity. Such a failure to enforce a statute enacted for the public benefit is considered a breach of a "public duty" and not enough to give rise to a tort action. But defectively constructed or poorly maintained sidewalks are a different matter. There, the governmental entity is simply being held legally responsible for its own property and work.
The plaintiff tripped on an uneven section of sidewalk in Urbandale and broke her arm and wrist. She sued the city for negligence in failing to properly maintain, repair, and warn about the sidewalk. The City, citing Johnson v. Humboldt County, 913 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 2018), argued that the action was barred by the public-duty doctrine. The District Court, Judge Sarah E. Crane, agreed and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed, and the case was heard by the Iowa Supreme Court.
The court began by reviewing the litigation regarding sidewalks, noting that "the Iowa Reports and the Northwestern Reporter are chock full of sidewalk cases against municipalities." But it then turned to the public-duty doctrine, which it summarized by saying that a duty owed to all is a duty owed to none. It then cited a number of cases applying the doctrine.
It noted that there was a critical distinction. In the public-duty cases, the municipality was protecting the public from some third party danger. It also noted that while the public-duty doctrine insulates the city from claims for nonfeasance, nonfeasance is not the same as neglect. Here, the city neglected the kinds of duties that are similar to those of a private party. It would rise to the level of nonfeasance only if they were particularly governmental obligations.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Mansfield, reversed and remanded. Justice Appel concurred in the result, but would have analyzed the case in terms of sovereign immunity.
No. 19-0221 (Iowa Mar. 19, 2021).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2021, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com