Opinion ID: 1834725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Comparative Fault Principles.

Text: Both negligence and breach-of-contract theories were presented to the jury, and the jury answered that the defendant was liable on both theories. The plaintiff cross-appealed on the ground that the trial court improperly applied the comparative fault principles of Iowa Code chapter 668 (1991). The suit was based on breach of contract, and chapter 668 was therefore inapplicable, according to the plaintiff's argument. She cites Tratchel v. Essex Group, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 171 (Iowa 1990), and Slager v. HWA Corp., 435 N.W.2d 349 (Iowa 1989), in support. In Slager, we held that comparative fault did not apply to suits brought under Iowa's Dram Shop Act. 435 N.W.2d at 358. Using a similar analysis, Tratchel held that comparative fault did not apply to fraud actions because contributory negligence had never been recognized in fraud cases. 452 N.W.2d at 180. This case is not controlled by either Tratchel or Slager because it is essentially a negligence cause of action, falling within the scope of the comparative fault act. The comparative fault statute defines fault as one or more acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to strict tort liability. Iowa Code § 668.1(1) (emphasis added). Here, the covenant to repair merely establishes the duty element of the negligence cause of action against Jensen, and the trial court correctly submitted comparative fault to the jury.