Opinion ID: 1345811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instructions on Liability Theory.

Text: The defendant objected to the court's instruction based on section 344 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, concerning liability for a failure to prevent harm caused by a third party. The City contended the jury should have been instructed on the premises liability theory contained in the Iowa State Bar Association's Civil Jury Instructions Nos. 900.1 and 900.5, which are based on Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 343 and 343A. These latter Restatement provisions address liability for harm caused by conditions on the land. The City's argument is essentially that the plaintiff pled and sought to prove a section 343 or section 343A case because he and his experts criticized the condition of the golf course, yet the court instructed under a theory the defendant had failed to protect the plaintiff from the wrongful conduct of a third party. We review a claim that the court gave an instruction that was not supported by the evidence for correction of errors of law. See State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 914 (Iowa 2003). We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant's requested instructions for an abuse of discretion. See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 2005). Under Iowa law, a court is required to give a requested instruction when it states a correct rule of law having application to the facts of the case and when the concept is not otherwise embodied in other instructions. Herbst v. State, 616 N.W.2d 582, 585 (Iowa 2000) (emphasis added). For the reasons that follow, we think the court correctly instructed the jury on the duty set forth in section 344. As we also explain, sections 343 and 343A have no application to the facts of this case, so the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct on those theories. Section 344 of the Restatement provides: A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (emphasis added). In contrast, section 343 concerns the liability of a possessor of land for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land  if the possessor (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (emphasis added). Section 343A sets forth specific rules governing physical harm caused to [invitees] by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A. As the wording of these provisions indicates, section 344 generally applies to injuries caused by third parties, whereas section 343 governs injuries caused by a condition on the land, and section 343A governs injuries caused by an activity or condition on the land. See Young v. Gregg, 480 N.W.2d 75, 78-79 (Iowa 1992) (distinguishing Restatement premises liability theories based on direct cause of injury); see also Morgan v. Perlowski, 508 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Iowa 1993) (refusing to apply principles governing liability of possessor of land for harm caused by conditions or activities on the land in case involving landowner's failure to protect guest from harm by another guest). A review of the record shows the gist of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was that the City, as owner and operator of the golf course, had a duty to its business invitee, Summy, to exercise reasonable care to protect Summy from physical harm caused by other golfers. The plaintiff introduced evidence that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care because there were several ways in which golfers could have been protected from other golfers' errant shots by making changes in the golf course in the area of the first and eighteenth fairways. The plaintiff never claimed that he was injured by a condition on the land, only that the condition of the land was such that it did not protect against injuries caused by third parties. We think this evidence supports the instruction given by the court since the cause of the plaintiff's injury was the conduct of a third person, against which the plaintiff claimed the defendant could have protected him. The fact that some of the protective steps that could have been taken by the City involved changes to the condition of the premises did not make this a section 343 or section 343A case. All three Restatement provisions address the liability of the possessor of land, so it is not surprising that the conduct of the defendant with respect to its management and care of the premises would be relevant to each of these theories. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in submitting this case on the theory set forth in section 344, and likewise did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct under sections 343 and 343A.