Opinion ID: 1294515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Instructing the Jury?

Text: The district court instructed the jury on the issue of the State's fault on Anderson's premises liability claim as follows: The plaintiff must prove all of the following propositions: 1. The defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of a condition on the premises and that it involved an unreasonable risk of injury to a person in the plaintiff's position. 2. The defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known: a. the plaintiff would not discover the condition, OR b the plaintiff would not realize the condition presented an unreasonable risk of injury, OR c. the plaintiff would not protect herself from the condition. 3. The defendant was negligent in: a. failing to use reasonable care to determine a hazardous condition at the entrance/exit to the Rod Library. OR b. failing to make the Rod Library entrance/exit reasonably safe after it knew of a hazardous condition. OR c. failing to give warning of a hazardous condition to the entrance/exit of the Rod Library and the risks involved in exiting the building. 4. The negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damage. 5. The nature and extent of damage. If the plaintiff has failed to prove any of these propositions, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages. If the plaintiff has proved all of these propositions, then you will consider the defense of comparative fault as explained in Instruction No. 17. See Wieseler v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 540 N.W.2d 445, 450 (Iowa 1995). Anderson objected to the instruction and claimed the court should have instructed the jury that the possessor of land must exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances existing at the time and place of the injury for the protection of lawful entrants. In making this objection and requesting an instruction defining the possessor's duty in terms of reasonable care, Anderson relied on Sheets v. Ritt, Ritt, & Ritt, Inc., 581 N.W.2d 602, 606 (Iowa 1998). The district court overruled the objection on the ground the instruction properly instructed the jury under the present state of the law. The court, being evenly divided on the jury instruction issue, declares the decision of the district court on this issue is affirmed by operation of law. See Iowa Code § 602.4107 (2003). [1]