Opinion ID: 1651227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Negligence Claim: Sufficiency of the Evidence Regarding Causation.

Text: The second issue we address is whether the district court erred in overruling the defendants' motion for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence that the track conditions proximately caused injuries to the plaintiffs' dogs. In their motion for directed verdict, the defendants contended the plaintiffs did not prove that the injuries to the dogs would not have occurred but for the defendants' maintenance of the track. In support of their contention, the defendants argued the plaintiffs did not produce testimony that a qualified veterinarian examined or treated any of the plaintiffs' dogs at the time they were allegedly injured and diagnosed them with injuries attributable to track conditions. At the close of all the evidence, the defendants renewed their motion. The defendants raised the same contention and arguments on appeal. 1. Applicable law. To sustain its negligence claim against the defendants, the plaintiffs had to prove that the defendants owed it a duty of care, they breached that duty, their breach was the actual and proximate cause of the injuries to its dogs, and the damages it suffered. Virden v. Betts & Beer Constr. Co., 656 N.W.2d 805, 807 (Iowa 2003). As we explained in Berte v. Bode, Causation has two components: (1) the defendant's conduct must have in fact caused the plaintiff's damages (generally a factual inquiry) and (2) the policy of the law must require the defendant to be legally responsible for the injury (generally a legal question). We apply a but for test to determine whether the defendant's conduct was a cause in fact of the plaintiff's harm. Under that test, the defendant's conduct is a cause in fact of the plaintiff's harm, if, but-for the defendant's conduct, that harm would not have occurred. The but-for test also implies a negative. If the plaintiff would have suffered the same harm had the defendant not acted negligently, the defendant's conduct is not a cause in fact of the harm. 692 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Iowa 2005) (citations omitted). Proximate cause or legal cause, the second element of causation, determines the appropriate scope of a negligent defendant's liability. In applying proximate cause rules, courts attempt to discern whether, in the particular case before the court, the harm that resulted from the defendant's negligence is so clearly outside the risks he created that it would be unjust or at least impractical to impose liability. Id. (citation omitted). Here, we are dealing with cause in fact. This court has long been committed to a liberal rule [that] allows opinion testimony if it is of a nature which will aid the jury and is based on special training, experience, or knowledge [as] to the issue in question. Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Stortenbecker, 334 N.W.2d 326, 330 (Iowa App.1983). However, medical testimony regarding whether an accident caused an injury is not within the knowledge and experience of ordinary laypersons. Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hosp., 251 Iowa 375, 382-83, 101 N.W.2d 167, 171 (1960) (holding that in patient's action for personal injury allegedly resulting from a fall in defendant hospital, medical testimony that it was possible that plaintiff's subsequent physical condition was caused by the fall was insufficient, standing alone, to take the issue of causation to the jury). Such testimony is essentially within the domain of testimony from a medical expert. Id. at 383, 101 N.W.2d at 171. Before such testimony can be considered competent, there must be sufficient data upon which the expert judgment can be made. The facts must be sufficient to allow the expert to reach a conclusion that is more than mere conjecture or speculation. Stortenbecker, 334 N.W.2d at 330-31. Without the medical testimony, a jury is left to resort to conjecture in determining causation. Chenoweth v. Flynn, 251 Iowa 11, 16, 99 N.W.2d 310, 313 (1959). The rule is the same with respect to injuries to animals. See Winter v. Honeggers' & Co., 215 N.W.2d 316, 323 (Iowa 1974) (holding veterinarian testimony that the negligent design of a hog confinement facility possibly caused an illness to hogs coupled with testimony that the hogs were not affected with the illness before the use of the facility was sufficient on the question of causation); Miller v. Economy Hog & Cattle Powder Co., 228 Iowa 626, 636-37, 293 N.W. 4, 9 (1940) (holding that, in suit for damages for death of sheep allegedly caused by feeding a product purchased from defendant, testimony from several veterinarians who examined the sheep on various occasions and who also made a number of post mortem examinations was sufficient on causation). As this court in Hildebrand & Son v. Black Hawk Oil Co. noted, the plaintiff is bound, as a necessary element of its case, to show that the injuries which its hogs suffered were the direct result of the feeding of this preparation to them. There is no expert testimony introduced in this case, there seems to have been no post mortem of the dead hogs, and there is no testimony directed to the point that the injury to this herd of hogs was the result of the feeding of the preparation to them. It is also to be remembered in cases of this character that in the course of events all animals die; in other words death is inherent in all animal creation. Equally so all animal creation is subject to many ailments, ills, and diseases, resulting in death or injury to the animal. Therefore, in a case of this kind, proof that the animal died or was permanently injured does not establish a case for the plaintiff. In short, plaintiff alleges that these hogs died and injury to the balance of the herd was caused by the feeding of this preparation to them. Plaintiff is bound to prove this else it has not made out a case. The evidence is wholly wanting to connect the death of these hogs with the feeding of this preparation, and equally so as to their stunted growth. 205 Iowa 946, 947-48, 219 N.W. 40, 40-41(1928) (citation omitted). 2. Analysis. The plaintiffs produced three witnesses concerning the dogs' injuries. Lori Fortune, an assistant dog trainer, testified that her training included identifying injuries and the cause of injuries to the dogs. She further testified that her training indicated to her what may have caused the injuries. She explained that in her experience a track that has inconsistent surfaces, such as Bluffs Run had, varying between hard and soft spots, can injure dogs. Hard spots she said could cause broken bones and loose spots could cause muscle and ligament damage. Over defendants' objection that the witness was not qualified to testify concerning causation of the dogs' alleged injuries, the witness was allowed to give her opinion that the majority of the injuries to the plaintiffs' dogs came from poor track conditions. Randy Schaben testified that he raised greyhounds. Like Fortune, Schaben described the Bluffs Run track in 2000 as having an inconsistent surfacethere were hard and soft spots on the surface of the track. He described the inconsistency this way: The easiest way to probably explain it would be like running from a grassy lawn onto a sidewalk and then back into grass . . . . It's just inconsistent footing, so to speak. He further testified that in 2000 his dogs suffered a lot of injuries at the track. James Lovely, a dog trainer who also raced greyhounds, testified that for a period of sixty and ninety days there were more dog injuries at Bluffs Run than there should have been. Although he was not sure what was causing so many injuries, his personal opinion was that there was a hard pan directly under the surface of the track. The plaintiffs also produced evidence from engineers who tested the soil on the track and who confirmed that the track conditions went from hard to soft, conditions that could be aggressive on a dog's paws. Beverly Yates, one of the owners of Yates Kennel, testified that the kennel was claiming damages for injuries to twenty-four dogs for the year 2000. A list of the dogs and their injuries is included in an exhibit in evidence. However, there was no medical testimony that attributed the cause of those injuries to race track conditions. This failure of proof was fatal to Yates Kennel's negligence claim. Fortune's testimony attributing the cause of a majority of the injuries to the track conditions was conjecture and therefore not sufficient to overcome this flaw. We agree with the defendants that evidence of increased injuries to dogs for a period of time was anecdotal, at best. Moreover, Fortune admitted that many other factors can account for injuries to greyhounds. These factors, she admitted, include genetics, conditioning, accidents at the kennel or while the dogs are being transported, dogs bumping into each other during the races, dogs racing while already injured, and the natural effects of racing on the body of a dog. Fortune conceded that the exhibit listing the injuries had no reference to track conditions but did have references to dogs falling and making contact with other dogs. A veterinarian called by the defendants confirmed that there are numerous causal factors related to greyhound injuries including genetics, where and how the dog was reared, nutrition, physical conditioning, type of competition, and a dog racing without adequate rest or with injury.