Opinion ID: 2119687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Resolution of Appeal.

Text: The district court has power to change a judgment it has rendered by correcting perceived legal or factual errors, or to construe or interpret the judgment so that the record accurately expresses what was previously done. [2] See Carroll v. Martir, 610 N.W.2d 850, 857 (Iowa 2000) (reiterating district court's power to correct perceived errors in its own judgments); see also Weissenburger v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 740 N.W.2d 431, 434 (Iowa 2007) (explaining purpose of nunc pro tunc order is to correct a clerical error so that the judgment reflects what was actually done). In this case, the district court declined to exercise its power to change or construe the summary judgment in response to the motion for clarification. Instead, the district court merely directed the parties to proceed to trial. The State claims this directive constituted legal error because the prior summary judgment rendered by the district court disposed of all claims brought by the Waters against the State. Thus, our task on appeal is to construe the summary judgment ruling entered by the district court to determine if any claims against the State survived the summary judgment. The State's application for interlocutory appeal did not challenge the merits of this summary judgment ruling. To the contrary, the State's application expressed its belief that the legal effect of the summary judgment ruling terminated the action brought against it by the Waters as it requested. A court decree is construed like any other written instrument. Local Bd. of Health v. Wood, 243 N.W.2d 862, 865 (Iowa 1976). The determinative factor in construing a court decree is the intent of the court, which is derived from all parts of the judgment. Id. We strive to construe a judgment consistent with the language used in the judgment. Hemmer v. Bonson, 139 Iowa 210, 217, 117 N.W. 257, 259 (1908). If the meaning of the decree is ambiguous, we resort to the pleadings and other proceedings to clarify the ambiguity. Sutton v. Schnack, 224 Iowa 251, 257, 275 N.W. 870, 873 (1937). In the end, we seek to give effect to those matters that are implied as well as express. Rinehart v. State, 234 N.W.2d 649, 656 (Iowa 1975). The parties agree that most of the legal claims asserted by the Waters to support liability against the State did not survive summary judgment. The Waters, however, maintain their allegation of negligence involving the failure of the department of transportation to remove the Deeds vehicle was not addressed in the summary judgment. The State asserts this particular claim was addressed and disposed of in two separate divisions of the summary judgment ruling. First, it asserts the district court disposed of the claim when it ruled that the State had no actionable duty to the Waters to remove the Deeds vehicle under the public duty doctrine. See Kolbe v. State, 625 N.W.2d 721, 729 (Iowa 2001) (We have routinely held that a breach of duty owed to the public at large is not actionable unless the plaintiff can establish, based on the unique or particular facts of the case, a special relationship between the State and the injured plaintiff.... (Emphasis omitted.)). Second, the State asserts the district court disposed of the claim when it ruled that the State was immune from any liability based on its failure to remove the Deeds vehicle under the discretionary function doctrine. See Iowa Code § 669.14(1) (2003) (providing statutory immunity for State actors when performing discretionary functions). We resolve both claims by first considering whether the district court intended to rule that the State and all its governmental subdivisions and actors had no actionable duty to the Waters to remove the vehicle. In determining the intended scope of the district court's summary judgment ruling, we begin by looking to the allegations of negligence contained in the petition filed by the Waters together with the grounds asserted by the State to support summary judgment. Importantly, the grounds for negligence alleged by the Waters in the petition included the failure of the department of transportation and department of public safety to timely remove the Deeds vehicle from the highway. Clearly, the State's motion for summary judgment sought judgment on the claim for negligence pertaining to the failure to remove the Deeds vehicle, but the motion did so only on two grounds. The State argued no special relationship existed between the department of public safety and the Waters to support the imposition of an actionable duty for the State to remove the Deeds vehicle. It further argued the State did not have a reasonable opportunity to remove the vehicle prior to the accident. The motion for summary judgment reveals the State's argument, that it had no duty to the Waters, was based entirely on the department of public safety's responsibility, at the direction of the state trooper, to remove the Deeds vehicle. The State did not additionally argue in the motion for summary judgment that the department of transportation, a separate governmental subdivision, also had no duty to the motoring public to remove disabled vehicles. See Koehler v. State, 263 N.W.2d 760, 765 (Iowa 1978) (recognizing duty of department of transportation to remove obstructions on highways); see also Iowa Code § 313.36 (Primary roads shall be maintained by the department [of transportation]....); id. § 319.1 (The department [of transportation] ... shall cause all obstructions in highways ... to be removed.). [3] In resisting the motion for summary judgment, the Waters asserted the State had an actionable duty to remove vehicles from highways because a special relationship was created with the motoring public pursuant to section 321.356. See id. § 321.356 (authorizing peace officers to move or cause to be moved a vehicle standing upon a highway). Consequently, while the Waters' claim for negligence for failure to remove the vehicle targeted both the actions of the department of transportation and the department of public safety, the summary judgment proceedings pertaining to this ground of negligence was only directed at the actions of the department of public safety. The pleadings and summary judgment proceedings are important in our search for intent because they put the language of the summary judgment ruling in context. This context, in turn, reveals the district court only intended to address the existence of a duty imposed on the State through the department of public safety when it concluded the law did not impose a duty on the State to remove the Deeds vehicle. Moreover, the summary judgment ruling contained no directive expressing an intent to expand its judgment beyond the context of the pleadings. Similarly, we reject the State's argument that the Waters' claim for negligence predicated on failing to remove the Deeds vehicle did not survive summary judgment under the district court's alternative finding that the State was immune from any liability derived from its decision to refrain from towing or removing the Deeds vehicle. In its motion for summary judgment, the State argued it was immune from liability based on claims involving the exercise of discretionary immunity on the part of the department of public safety and its employees, as well as the department of transportation and its employees. However, the claim of immunity urged by the State pertaining to the department of transportation's exercise of discretionary functions was argued solely in the context of the department of transportation's decision to refrain from removing snow and ice from the highway, and refraining from closing the highway to motorists. The State did not additionally argue it was immune from liability for claims involving the department of transportation's decision not to tow or remove the Deeds vehicle. Moreover, the district court did not use any language in its ruling to extend the grant of summary judgment based on immunity to the decision by the department of transportation to refrain from towing or removing the Deeds vehicle. Thus, both the context of the summary judgment proceedings and the language of the district court ruling revealed the district court did not intend to include the Waters' negligence claim based on the department of transportation's failure to remove the Deeds vehicle. All the language in the district court ruling concerning the absence of an actionable duty of care on the State to support negligence and the existence of immunity for the State, while sounding as a grant of complete summary judgment, did not apply to the Waters' specific claim for negligence based on the failure of the department of transportation to remove the Deeds vehicle when placed in its proper context. Additionally, the district court did not otherwise expressly or impliedly declare the claim was included in the judgment. [4] Under such circumstances, we cannot find any intent for the district court to have granted complete summary judgment. Nevertheless, the State asserts the Waters failed to argue and identify the presence of a separate claim for liability based on the department of transportation's failure to remove the Deeds vehicle during the proceedings before the district court, which now precludes them from asserting the presence of such a claim on appeal to affirm the decision of the district court. We recognize our preservation-of-error rule that appellate courts will not consider a matter raised for the first time on appeal, even if it is the only basis to uphold the ruling of the district court. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 63 (Iowa 2002). Yet, we are construing a court decree in this case, not deciding the merits of the ruling. Moreover, there was no reason for the Waters to identify their separate claim of liability based on the department of transportation's failure to remove the Deeds vehicle in resisting the motion for summary judgment when the State never attacked this claim as grounds for summary judgment. Finally, the State argues the law does not recognize a duty for the department of transportation to remove disabled vehicles from a highway during a snowstorm of the magnitude experienced at the time of the accident that gave rise to the proceedings in this case. It asserts that any thoughtful analysis of the law and the undisputed facts about the paralyzing weather conditions at the time of the accident would lead to the conclusion that no State agency responsible for the maintenance of highways was negligent for failing to remove the Deeds vehicle prior to the accident. The State's argument addresses a judgment on the merits that has not yet been rendered by the district court. Our role in this appeal is not to rule on claims not presented to the district court, but to construe the judgment entered by the district court.