Brunson v. Winter

Citations: 443 N.W.2d 717; 1989 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 195; 1989 WL 79623Docket: 88-767

Court: Supreme Court of Iowa; July 19, 1989; Iowa; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bernice and Donald Brunson filed a lawsuit against John L. Winter and Robert C. Starr, seeking damages from a motor vehicle accident. Bernice claimed she stopped her vehicle due to Winter backing into her lane and was then struck from behind by a vehicle owned by Starr and driven by his wife. Bernice sought damages for her injuries and property loss, while Donald sought damages for loss of consortium. The case was unsuccessful; a pre-trial ruling determined that Starr's potential vicarious liability was nullified by a release Bernice signed in favor of Donna Starr. At trial, the jury found Winter not at fault and ruled against Donald on his claim. Consequently, judgment was entered against the Brunsons.

On appeal, the Brunsons challenged the ruling on the release, the jury's verdict adequacy, and an evidentiary ruling, while Starr cross-appealed regarding an evidentiary ruling as well. The court dismissed Winter from the appeal since no issues were raised against him. The adjudication of law points was based on a pre-trial conference directive, focusing on the release's effect. The court ruled that Starr's vicarious liability was discharged by Bernice's release of Donna, despite Bernice's claims that the release's validity involved disputed facts. The court upheld that the release issue was appropriate for adjudication under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 105, confirming no material facts were in dispute.

Starr did not include a defense based on the release in her answer, which was submitted before the release was recorded. On August 3, 1987, during a pre-trial conference, defendant Winter served an interrogatory on Brunson regarding settlements and any released parties, leading to the production of a release given to Starr by Brunson. The court confirmed the release as a "complete release" during the conference and issued a pre-trial order that effectively amended the pleadings under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 138. The court noted that the defense of release was properly raised, and Brunson did not object or seek to amend the pre-trial order at any point prior to trial. Consequently, her later claims regarding the release were deemed too late. The court ruled that the pre-trial order controlled the proceedings and that any admissions made by an attorney during the pre-trial conference are binding. Brunson's attorney's failure to challenge the validity of the release or to argue about consideration or mutual mistake during the pre-trial proceedings meant those issues had been resolved. The ruling on the adjudication of law points was based on uncontested pleadings, rejecting Brunson's contrary claims.

The appeal did not contest the court's interpretation of the release's effect, so its substantive correctness is not assessed. The ruling dismissed Bernice Brunson's action against Starr but allowed her claim against John L. Winter and Donald Brunson’s loss of consortium action to continue. The jury found Donna Starr 60% at fault, Bernice Brunson 40% at fault, and John L. Winter with no fault. The jury awarded Bernice Brunson damages for property and personal injury but denied Donald Brunson's loss of consortium claim. Bernice Brunson contends her damages were inadequate; however, due to the correct legal ruling and the jury's finding of no fault on Winter's part, she is not entitled to damages. Donald Brunson argues he suffered a loss of spousal consortium, claiming the jury disregarded uncontroverted damages, yet the jury determined he had no damage. The court had instructed the jury appropriately, and despite his complaints, he failed to prove a quantifiable loss. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial on this matter. Additionally, Bernice Brunson challenged the trial court's allowance of hearsay impeachment regarding her medical witness, but this issue is moot since Winter and Starr bear no liability. The doctor’s testimony pertained only to damages, not liability. Starr's cross-appeal on evidentiary issues is also not addressed due to the ruling on liability. The decision is affirmed.