Opinion ID: 1700768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duty to Provide Proper Roadway Lighting.

Text: The court instructed the jury that the city had a duty to take appropriate action to provide roadway lighting which is up to current design standards. The city objected, claiming that its duty was to maintain the roadway lighting at the level of service established by the City. The city relied on Iowa Code section 670.4(7) and (8) which makes the city immune from liability for the design of roads and public improvements under certain conditions. The trial court overruled the city's objection, presumably because the court's instructions embodied the very concept that the city wanted. Instruction 29 stated, If the City proves it has complied with its policy or level of service for maintenance of the lighting on the viaduct, your verdict will be for the City on this issue. We do not approve the instructions given by the court with respect to the city's duty in the design of the lighting on the viaduct. Section 670.4 immunizes a municipality from liability if the road or public improvement was constructed or reconstructed in accordance with a generally recognized engineering or safety standard, criteria, or design theory in existence at the time of the construction or reconstruction. Iowa Code § 670.4(7), (8) (1991). The policy of the city with respect to the design of a road or public improvement is not the proper focus. Although we disapprove of the instructions in this case, any error is not reversible. First, the city did not object to the court's instructions because they focused on current design standards rather than on the design standards in effect at the time the lighting was erected. The city's only objection was that its duty was limited to complying with its own policy and level of service, a concept it incorrectly thought was not incorporated in the court's instructions. Second, the instructions given by the court were actually more favorable to the city than instructions consistent with section 670.4 would have been. Although the city was actually required to comply with generally recognized design standards, under the court's instructions it was only required to meet the less onerous standard it set for itself. We will reverse for error in giving an instruction only when the error is prejudicial. Coker v. Abell-Howe Co., 491 N.W.2d 143, 148 (Iowa 1992). The error here was not prejudicial to the city. APPEAL AFFIRMED; CROSS-APPEAL MOOTED.