Opinion ID: 1643662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Instruction on a Landowner's Duty of Care:

Text: To instruct the jury on Lakeland's duty of care to invitees, the district court utilized Iowa Uniform Jury Instruction No. 20, which states in pertinent part: This standard of care does not require premises to be free from all conditions that could possibily cause harm to an invitee, but a possessor of real estate is liable for physical harm to invitees caused by certain conditions existing on the premises if he fails to use reasonable care to protect invitees from harm therefrom. This instruction was given over Lakeland's request that the court use Instruction No. 22.3, which is identical to Instruction No. 20 but for the language emphasized below: This standard of care does not require the premises to be free from all conditions that could possibly cause harm so as to guarantee or insure the safety of all invitees . . . . (Emphasis added.) Lakeland objected to Instruction No. 20 because it felt that omission of the guarantee or insure language would effectively hold it to a higher standard than the law provided. [1] We consider Lakeland's appellate challenge to the court's instruction in the light of the general rule that a party is not entitled to a particular instruction, but only to an instruction that adequately states the law as applied to the facts. See Rumley v. City of Mason City, 320 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Iowa 1982). For a number of reasons, we believe that the instruction submitted to the jury adequately stated the pertinent law. In recent years, this court has applied the principles set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at sections 343 and 343A, concerning a landowner's duty to invitees. See Byers v. Contemporary Inds. Midwest, Inc., 419 N.W.2d 396, 397 (Iowa 1988); Mundy v. Warren, 268 N.W.2d 213, 217 (Iowa 1978); Hanson v. Town and Country Shopping Center, Inc., 259 Iowa 542, 546-49, 144 N.W.2d 870, 873-75 (1966). Generally, these principles state that a landowner is liable to invitees for harm caused by a condition on the land only if the owner: (a) Knows or by the exercise of reasonable care should 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 (1965) (emphasis added); see Mundy, 268 N.W.2d at 217 (quoting Restatement). These principles are qualified by section 343A, which applies when a condition on the land is known or obvious to the invitee. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 Comment a, § 343A (1965). In such a case, liability will arise only when a landlord should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. See id. § 343A; Mundy, 268 N.W.2d at 217. While some of our earlier opinions on a landowner's duty of care also set forth the guarantee or insure language, see e.g., Frantz v. Knights of Columbus, 205 N.W. 2d 705, 709 (Iowa 1973), they did so in concert with the Restatement (Second) principle of reasonable care. Our more recent opinions have concentrated primarily on the reasonable care language. See e.g., Byers, 419 N.W.2d at 397; Mundy, 268 N.W.2d at 217. Because the term reasonable care is not an absolute standard, it contains by implication the concept that a landowner does not guarantee or insure the safety of invitees. Instruction No. 20 was thus an adequate statement of the law and the court's refusal to give Lakeland's instruction furnished no ground for new trial. See McConnell v. Aluminum Co. of America, 367 N.W.2d 245, 248 (Iowa 1985); Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(3). The assignment of error is without merit.