Cerro Gordo Hotel v. City of Mason City

Citations: 505 N.W.2d 509; 1993 Iowa App. LEXIS 87; 1993 WL 358465Docket: 92-988

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; June 29, 1993; Iowa; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Cerro Gordo Hotel Company appealed a decision from the Iowa Court of Appeals after the district court dismissed its claims against the City of Mason City and various officials related to the demolition of two buildings, the Park 70 Theater and Eadmar Hotel. The buildings had been in disrepair, and a prior nuisance stipulation required Cerro Gordo to demolish them by March 1989. Following a partial roof collapse on June 25, 1988, city officials, including Charles McGreevey, determined that an emergency warranted immediate demolition. McGreevey consulted with others before making the final decision, and McKiness Excavating carried out the demolition on June 26, 1988.

Cerro Gordo filed a lawsuit on June 22, 1990, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, trespass, and negligence, arguing the buildings were structurally sound and the demolition unnecessary. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on negligence, granting a directed verdict for the defendants on this issue. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, leading to the district court’s dismissal of Cerro Gordo’s claims. On appeal, Cerro Gordo contended that the trial court erred by not allowing the jury to consider the negligence claims, arguing that the defendants acted hastily in determining the need for demolition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that it was appropriate to refuse the negligence instruction.

Plaintiff's negligence claim against Defendant McKiness lacks sufficient evidentiary support, particularly concerning the standard of care required for the jury to assess McKiness's conduct. Consequently, the trial court correctly declined to submit this claim to the jury. In evaluating claims against other defendants, Iowa Code chapter 613A applies, holding municipalities liable for torts by their employees within the scope of duty, except in emergencies. The emergency defense under section 613A.4 exempts municipalities from liability for actions taken in emergency responses, provided a fact finder determines an emergency existed. As such, the trial court found that a negligence instruction was unnecessary due to the emergency defense instruction already given to the jury. Additionally, the court is not required to provide redundant jury instructions if the concepts are adequately covered in existing instructions. The emergency defense instruction outlined that the defendants argued the property was a public nuisance requiring immediate action for public safety, which can bypass due process rights under emergency circumstances. However, to justify such action, the defendants must demonstrate that the property posed a genuine hazard and that destruction was essential to mitigate the danger. The guidance emphasizes that less drastic measures should be considered to address a public hazard when possible.

To establish the defense of emergency, the Defendant must prove: 1) an emergency situation existed; 2) the Plaintiff's property was a public nuisance posing an immediate safety hazard; and 3) demolition was the only adequate means to eliminate the hazard. If all elements are proven, the Defendant's emergency defense is established, warranting a verdict in their favor. The jury was instructed to assess the propriety of the demolition decision, as well as to evaluate whether the Defendants trespassed and if their actions caused damage to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought a negligence instruction, arguing that the Defendants were negligent in determining the existence of an emergency and in their demolition efforts. These issues were already addressed in other jury instructions, leading to the trial court's refusal to submit the negligence instruction, which was upheld on appeal. The appellate court noted a stipulated agreement from April 4, 1988, required Cerro Gordo to demolish the buildings by March 1989, and that no action had been taken by the time of the June 1988 collapse. Consequently, the trial court properly refused to submit negligence-related issues. Additionally, the Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of Iowa Code section 613A.4(11) was not preserved for appeal and thus not addressed. Appeal costs are awarded against Plaintiff Cerro Gordo. The trial court's decisions are affirmed.