Opinion ID: 1995711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Immunity Under Iowa Code Section 670.4(10) for Third-party Fault

Text: Finally, the city argues it cannot be held liable for Messerschmidt's injuries when it was the drunken driver, not the city, who drove a car into Messerschmidt injuring her. The city filed a motion for a new trial with the trial court arguing the court erred in denying the city's request for an instruction on immunity under Iowa Code section 670.4(10). This section provides for immunity from, [a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an officer or employee of the municipality, whether by issuance of permit, inspection, investigation, or otherwise... if the damage was caused by a third party, event, or property not under the supervision or control of the municipality, unless the act or omission of the officer or employee constitutes actual malice or a criminal offense. Iowa Code § 670.4(10). The city argued Messerschmidt's injuries were caused by a third party, event, or property not under the city's supervision or control. The court ruled that whatever negligence may be attributable to the drunken driver is not a superseding or intervening cause of the injury, but rather is a part of the totality of the circumstances leading to Messerschmidt's injuries. We must consider whether the city can find shelter from liability under Iowa Code section 670.4(10). Whether this section is applicable to the case before us presents a question of law appropriate for determination by the trial court. The city's reliance on section 670.4(10) immunity is misplaced. This section provides a municipality is immune from liability for [a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an officer or employee of the municipality, whether by issuance of permit, inspection, investigation, or otherwise .... Iowa Code § 670.4(10) (emphasis added). Messerschmidts claim the city was negligent in removing the barricades, security officers, and law enforcement vehicles and in reopening the frontage road to motor vehicle traffic. Messerschmidts do not allege the city is liable for its actions in conducting an investigation or inspection or through issuing a permit. We must determine whether the city's action in removing the barricade is the type of action that falls within the meaning of the word otherwise as it is used in this statute. The doctrine of ejusdem generis is instructive. Under this doctrine, when specific words are used in a statute followed by general words, the general words are restricted to include only objects similar to those specified. Shatzer v. Globe Am. Cas. Co., 639 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2001). Here, the specific words are issuance of permit, inspection, and investigation. These words contemplate actions by the city such as the inspection of buildings and elevators, food inspection, and issuance of permits. See, e.g., Williams v. Bayers, 452 N.W.2d 624, 626 (Iowa Ct. App.1990) (where plaintiff injured in a building in which city conducted inspections and issued permits, municipality not liable under Iowa Code section 613A.4(10) (renumbered Iowa Code § 670.4(10)) because these actions did not constitute supervision or control over the premises). The words issuance of permit, investigation, and inspection are followed by the more generic phrase, or otherwise. The term otherwise is not so broad as to include every municipality action or omission. Pursuant to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, otherwise is intended to define the preceding terms with some flexibility. This flexibility is intended to accommodate for similar municipality actions not within the express contemplation of the legislature when it enacted this immunity provision. Otherwise includes only those actions of a municipality similar to an inspection, investigation, or issuance of a permit. Here, the city did not inspect, investigate, or issue a permit. The city's actions in removing the barricade are not remotely similar to the actions contemplated by section 670.4(10). In this case, it cannot be said the statute contemplates the city's removal of a barricade as coming within the protective ambit of section 670.4(10) immunity. Messerschmidts claim the city's negligence in removing the barricade was a proximate cause of Cheryl's injuries. Because the city did not conduct an investigation or inspection or issue a permit, section 670.4(10) does not apply to this case. In the court's ruling on the city's motion for a new trial, the court properly found it did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on immunity premised upon Iowa Code section 670.4(10). The city amended its original answer arguing this immunity after the close of Messerschmidts' case in chief. Because section 670.4(10) immunity does not protect the city from liability, we do not reach Messerschmidts' objection to the trial court's allowance of this late amendment and the trial court is affirmed as to this ruling.