Opinion ID: 2123620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of the city.

Text: In Division I we set out in detail authorities holding that the city bears a legal responsibility to pedestrians for negligently failing to remove snow and ice from public sidewalks. The city, however, claims that by enacting section 364.12(2) the legislature intended to lift legal responsibility from the city and place it squarely upon the abutting owner. In division I we held to the contrary. We must determine whether that legal responsibility still remains with the city. The city maintains that the legislature set out the general duty of municipalities with regard to public ways in section 364.12(2) and then qualified this duty with several exceptions. The city emphasizes the legislature's use of the term exception and maintains that it normally means an exclusion. Thus, the city concludes that the statute abrogates its responsibility for prompt removal of snow and ice from public sidewalks. We do not agree. Our ultimate goal in interpreting statutes is to determine legislative intent. In this endeavor we are aided by certain principles of statutory construction. We may consider the language used in the statute, the objects sought to be accomplished, the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied and place a reasonable construction on the statute which will best effect its purpose rather than one which will defeat it. Crow v. Shaeffer, 199 N.W.2d 45, 47 (Iowa 1972). We must examine both the language used and the purpose for which the legislation was enacted and consider all parts together without giving undue importance to one single or isolated portion. Wilson v. Iowa City, 165 N.W.2d 813, 822 (Iowa 1969). We assume the legislature was familiar with the existing state of the law and our constructions of similar statutes. We also assume that if the legislature sought to remedy specific evils it would have clearly so indicated. Jahnke v. Incorporated City of Des Moines, 191 N.W.2d 780, 787 (Iowa 1971). The preamble of legislation is evidence of legislative intent and may be considered. See City of Des Moines v. Public Employment Relations Board, 275 N.W.2d 753, 760 (Iowa 1979). Prior statutes may be examined, and mere differences in words or arrangement should not generate an inference of legislative intent to change the former rule. Mowrey v. Schulz, 230 Iowa 102, 105, 296 N.W. 822, 823-24 (1941). A revision will not be construed as altering a particular statute absent a clear, unmistakable legislative intent. Kelly v. Brewer, 239 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Iowa 1976). When a revised statute is ambiguous or susceptible of two constructions, reference may be made to prior statutes for the purpose of ascertaining intent. Hanover Insurance Co. v. Alamo Motel, 264 N.W.2d 774, 778 (Iowa 1978). Applying these principles to the city's claim that by using the term exception the legislature intended to exclude the city from liability to pedestrians, we believe the city has misconstrued the term exception to modify the first portion of section 364.12(2). The statute contains two separate and distinct clauses: 1. A city is responsible for the care, supervision and control of public ... sidewalks..., except those lawfully required to be maintained by a railroad company, 2. and the city shall keep all public ways ... open, in repair, and free from nuisance, with the following exceptions: The first clause places a general, overall responsibility on the city, qualified only by the exception relating to public ways required by law to be maintained by railroad companies. The second clause is directory and places responsibility for housekeeping on the city, with certain exceptions. One exception places responsibility for removal of snow, ice, and accumulation from sidewalks on the abutting property owner-but the city may perform the required action and assess the cost against the abutting property. We conclude that the term exceptions modifies only the second clause of section 364.12(2). We assume that the legislature knew of the existing state of our case law, holding the city rather than the abutting property owner liable to pedestrians. We find no clear indication in the present statute that the legislature intended to change the existing law. First, there is no language in the statute expressly addressing the issue of liability to pedestrians. Second, the legislative history of section 364.12(2) does not evince any intention on the part of the legislature either to shift to the abutting property owner or otherwise abrogate the city's liability to pedestrians for negligent care of public sidewalks. The preamble to the legislation states that the purpose of the enactment is to establish home rule for local government. A careful reading of the preamble does not reveal anything purporting to alter the existing state of the law regarding liability to pedestrians. See 1972 Session, 64th G.A. ch. 1088, preamble. Section 368.33, The Code 1973, the predecessor of section 364.12(2), which was repealed by chapter 1088, provided: It shall be the responsibility of the abutting property owner to promptly remove snow, ice, and accumulations from the sidewalks, but in the event that such snow, ice, or accumulations are permitted to remain on said sidewalks for more than a reasonable length of time, then the municipal corporation shall have power to remove them and to assess the actual cost thereof against the said property. In view of what we said above, we conclude that section 364.12(2) is merely a revision and recodification of repealed section 368.33. Although the language is rearranged, we perceive no intent on the part of the legislature to change that statute's purpose, operation, or effect. If the present provision created any ambiguities concerning liability to pedestrians, they may be resolved by looking to our decisions under the repealed statute. As set out in division I, these decisions consistently held the city liable to injured pedestrians. We hold that the legislature intended to leave legal responsibility on municipalities for injury to pedestrians caused by negligent failure to remove snow and ice from public sidewalks. The district court's ruling was correct with respect to each of the motions to dismiss. AFFIRMED.