Opinion ID: 2210398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was a Common Law Duty Owed Appellants' Decedents?

Text: Appellants further contend that even if Iowa Code section 321.358(8) does not apply, Mike's Lines and Swiss Valley owe a duty under common law to park their vehicles so as not to obstruct the view of motorists or trains approaching the railroad crossing. Appellants also contend that Restatement (Second) of Torts section 368 (1965) places a common law duty on appellees to refrain from obstructing visibility at the railroad crossing. That section states that: A possessor of land who creates or permits to retain thereon an excavation or other artificial condition so near an existing highway that he realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk to others accidentally brought into contact with such condition while traveling with reasonable care upon the highway, is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to persons who (a) are traveling on the highway, or (b) foreseeably deviate from it in the ordinary course of travel. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 368 (1965). Appellants are correct in stating that this court places weight upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts when determining whether a given defendant owes a duty to a plaintiff and the scope of that duty. See, e.g., Toney v. Casey's Gen. Stores, Inc., 372 N.W.2d 220 (Iowa 1985); Frantz v. Knights of Columbus, 205 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 1973); Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 1970). But appellants' reliance on Restatement (Second) of Torts section 368 is misplaced. Since this section is directed at possessors of land, it is intended to cover conditions (like excavations) which are a part of the real estate. These semi-trailers owned by Mike's Lines are not part of Swiss Valley's real estate. Second, the hazard addressed by section 368 is not the risk of sight obstruction, but rather the risk that a traveler will come into contact with a condition on the real estate, either while traveling on the highway or foreseeably deviating from the highway in the ordinary course of travel. Even assuming that the semi-trailers constitute an artificial condition of the real estate as that undefined term is used in section 368, the semi-trailers would not violate section 368 unless they posed an unreasonable risk to travelers who may accidentally be brought into contact with them. Applying the same analysis to the creamery buildings, we find Restatement (Second) of Torts section 368 does not apply. Although the buildings are part of the real estate, the facts of this case show that no physical contact was made by appellants' vehicle and the creamery buildings. Appellees, on the other hand, contend that the common law issue in this case is more properly disposed of by analogy to several of our previous decisions. In Bruggeman v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 154 Iowa 596, 134 N.W. 1079 (1912), we considered whether a railroad's placing of freight cars on a sidetrack which obstructs the view of a motorist approaching the crossing is an independent ground of negligence. In that case, we stated [t]hat the placing of freight cars upon a sidetrack so as to obstruct the view of a crossing would not be deemed as an independent ground of negligence is too plain to require argument. Id. at 599, 134 N.W. at 1080. This court has also held that submission to the jury of an issue of negligence in placing box cars near a crossing which obstruct the view of a traveler is reversible error, Anderson v. United States R.R. Admin., 193 Iowa 1041, 1046, 188 N.W. 826, 829 (1922), and that the presence of railroad cars claimed to constitute an obstruction of view is not an act of negligence which is sufficient to create liability for damages. Bannister v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 199 Iowa 657, 658, 202 N.W. 766, 767 (1925). These cases suggest that the presence of obstructions to view at a railroad crossing is a circumstance which bears upon the degree of care required to be exercised by both the railroad and the motoring public, but does not provide a basis for a cause of action in tort. Decisions of high courts in other jurisdictions are in accord with this rule. See, e.g., Alabama Great S. R.R. Co. v. Johnston, 281 Ala. 140, 199 So.2d 840, 844 (1967); Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Pettie, 196 Okl. 52, 162 P.2d 543, 546 (1945); Parrish v. Atlantic Coastline Ry. Co., 221 N.C. 292, 20 S.E.2d 299, 304 (1942); Cowles v. New York, N.H. and H.R. Co., 80 Conn. 48, 66 A. 1020 (1907). Although factually distinguishable from the present case, this court has previously considered whether obstructions to view located on private property and off the traveled portion of the roadway will support a cause of action for negligence. In Fritz v. Parkison, 397 N.W.2d 714 (Iowa 1986), plaintiff alleged that trees, brush and shrubs growing on the property of a third-party defendant constituted a sight distance obstruction which was the proximate cause of an accident in which plaintiff was injured. In Fritz, we held that: [W]e have at various times imposed liability against individuals responsible for allowing a highway to become obstructed or hazardous ... in each of these cases the traveled way actually was obstructed and in several of them the hazard presented was sudden and unexpected. By contrast, in this case, Norton's trees did not physically obstruct or in any way intrude upon the traveled portion of the road. Rather, the trees were located off the right-of-way. They neither directly impeded travel nor constituted any kind of latent condition ... while Norton's trees may have required drivers to proceed with some additional degree of caution, the trees could not reasonably have been expected to pose any significant threat to motorists operating their vehicles in a reasonably prudent manner, and clearly could not be characterized as an unexpected occurrence like a falling limb or a gaggle of geese. It is equally plain that primary responsibility for insuring reasonably safe highways is not imposed on abutting property owner. Id. at 715-16 (citations omitted) (affirming summary judgment entered by district court). Although not a natural sight obstruction like the trees in Fritz, the semi-trailers parked on Swiss Valley property do not physically obstruct or in any way intrude upon the traveled portion of the road. Appellants argue that the appellees were in a better position than Duane Gray to prevent the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. Even apart from the lack of any legal duty devolved on appellees, we do not find this to be so. Had the driver of the automobile in which appellants decedents were riding observed his legal duty to stop, look and listen at the crossing, this accident probably would not have occurred. See Scherer v. Scandrett, 235 Iowa 229, 16 N.W.2d 329 (1944). After weighing all the factors involved in this litigation, we conclude appellees Swiss Valley and Mike's Lines owed motorists no duty to guard against the risk of harm from obstructed visibility under the circumstances of this case. We therefore affirm the summary judgment entered by the district court. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.