Opinion ID: 2111373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Liability of Bushnell and College Block Was Correctly Determined.

Text: The first issue for consideration is the challenge by Bushnell and College Block to the court's conclusion that they breached a duty to plaintiffs that caused them harm. In contending that this did not occur, appellants argue that the evidence failed to show that they had notice of the icy condition or a reasonable period of time within which to remove it. Because the liability of College Block and Bushnell was imposed for keeping in place the conditions that produced the ice rather than for not removing it, we must reject those arguments. In support of their arguments, Bushnell and College Block rely on several slip-and-fall cases establishing that a city's duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice must be based on actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and a reasonable period of time within which to remove it. [1] They also rely on Frantz v. Knights of Columbus, 205 N.W.2d 705, 712 (Iowa 1973), involving the duty of a possessor of land to protect its patrons against the hazards of natural accumulations of ice and snow. This argument suffers from the fact that, as pointed out in the Frantz opinion, the requirements of notice and an opportunity to remove the hazard which limit liability in situations involving natural accumulations of ice and snow do not extend to situations in which the defendant has control over the condition that caused the ice to form. See Frantz, 205 N.W.2d at 712. In such cases, notice of the danger is presumed. Richardson v. The Commodore, Inc., 599 N.W.2d 693, 698 (Iowa 1999); Ling v. Hosts Inc., 164 N.W.2d 123, 126 (Iowa 1969); Bartels v. Cair-Dem, Inc., 255 Iowa 834, 840-41, 124 N.W.2d 514, 518 (1963). In the present case, the district court expressly found [d]efendants College Block Partners and Bushnell's Turtle had a ... responsibility because it was the parapet on their building that caused the condition. The court further found, based on Zastrow's testimony, that College Block and Bushnell were aware of the danger posed by the building runoff. The absence of any gutters to safely channel the building runoff was attributable to building restrictions imposed by a restoration project conducted pursuant to both city and federal regulation. However, as the district court noted, once Bushnell and College Block elected to own property subject to those antigutter restrictions, it was incumbent upon them to devise other means by which the runoff could be safely channeled away from the sidewalk below. The district court found that they had made no effort to do that. As a final argument against the court's finding of liability, Bushnell and College Block seek to be relieved of any duty to the plaintiffs that might otherwise exist by reason of a covenant by the City of Iowa City to remove accumulations of ice and snow in the pedestrian plaza area. We reject this argument because, as we discuss more fully in connection with our consideration of plaintiffs' appeal against the city, the trial court properly found that the obligation the city assumed only extended to (1) the removal of natural accumulations of snow and ice, and (2) frozen building runoff that was present and observable during the time that the city was removing natural accumulations. The district court did not err in imposing liability on College Block and Bushnell.