Court Opinion

ID: 9525947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:09:53.706682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:43.879702
License: Public Domain

LAVORATO, Chief Justice
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
I concur as to Division I and dissent as to Division II.
Iowa Code section 85.20 provides that an employee may seek common-law recovery for injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment when they resulted from the gross negligence of coemployees amounting to such lack of care as to amount to wanton neglect for the safety of another.
As the majority notes, three elements are necessary to establish the gross-negligence claim: (1) knowledge of the peril to be apprehended; (2) knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger; and (3) a conscious failure to avoid the peril. Henrich v. Lorenz, 448 N.W.2d 327, 332 (Iowa 1989). To recover, a plaintiff must establish all three elements by substantial evidence. Id. at 333.
The district court concluded there was a jury question as to the first and third elements. The majority does not dispute this conclusion.
However, the district court determined that, while a reasonable jury could conclude that those defendants actually carrying out the prank should have known that an injury to Nelson was possible, a reasonable jury could not conclude on this record that an injury was probable. The majority agrees.
The district court also concluded that, “[b]y binding Nelson’s arms with duct tape, the defendants prevented him from protecting himself. Therefore, an injury was possible if he were dropped to the floor.” Contrary to the district court and the majority, however, I think there were additional facts that generated a genuine issue of fact on whether the injury was probable.
The majority relies heavily on Nelson’s deposition testimony as proof that the injury was not probable. For example, the majority points out that Nelson testified that his hands and feet were taped and he therefore could not resist. Additionally, the majority relies on the fact that seven or eight men carried Nelson a distance estimated by Nelson to be ten to fifteen feet to a shower where he was dropped, striking the floor. The inference the majority makes is that, in all probability, seven or eight men would not drop an individual when that individual is unable to resist and is carried only a short distance.
There are several problems with this reasoning. Considering Nelson’s deposition as a whole, one can reasonably con-*392elude Nelson had no clear memory of what happened once he was accosted because he probably blacked out after hitting the floor. Most of what he relates is what people told him. More important, Bill D. Lamping, one of the defendants, who has much to lose in this lawsuit, testified in his deposition directly contrary to what Nelson testified.
First, Lamping testified that Nelson was struggling intensely with his captors:
■ Q. When you say they were struggling with Kim Nelson; is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Tell me — Can you describe what you saw? A. Well, Kim was fighting like a madman. And these other guys were trying to tape him up.
Q. You say he was fighting- like a madman. He was trying to get loose. A. Yes.
Q. All right. A. He was trying to hurt—
Q. Pardon? A. He was trying to hurt some of the other people.
Q. Trying to hurt them? A. Yes, by grabbing their testicles, pinching them, hitting them.
Second, according to Lamping, Nelson’s legs were not taped together:
Q. Approximately how long did they take in taping him up completely? A. A few minutes.
[[Image here]]
Q. At the end of that period of time he was then — were his arms taped down to his side? A. Yes, they were.
Q. Were his legs taped together? A. No, they were not.
Q. His arms were incapacitated though, weren’t they? A. Yes, they were.
Q. There was no tape on his legs at all? A. No, there was not.
Third, Lamping confirmed that the defendants were having a problem carrying Nelson and that he — Lamping—warned the defendants:
Q. During the taping was he picked up off the ground? A. Yes, he was.
Q. You said you at one point did something with one of his legs? A. I supported it.
Q. Okay. Tell me how that happened. What are you saying? What did you do? A. I’m saying that they were having him at an angle, and I hollered at them to pick him up before they dropped him and hurt him. And they got him up and dropped his leg. And I went under it and stuck my arms under it like this.
[[Image here]]
Q. And why do you say you were supporting him? A. Yes.
Q. I mean, why were you doing that? A. So they wouldn’t drop him.
[[Image here]]
Q. [D]id he get one leg loose? A. The way he was fighting, I’d say he probably pulled one loose.
Additionally, according to Lamping, six men carried Nelson, who at the time weighed 220 pounds, while he — Lamping— supported Nelson’s legs. The evidence would also support a finding that the defendants carried Nelson twenty to thirty feet to the shower. From the injuries sustained and from Nelson’s testimony, a fact finder could reasonably find that Nelson fell on his face. The evidence shows he also sustained injuries to his head, neck, back, and shoulders. The injuries were apparently serious, because Winnebago paid medical benefits totaling $23,268.77.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Nelson, I think a fact finder could piece together the following scenario. Six men, bent on a mission to carry a fellow employee to a shower some thirty feet away, taped the struggling 220-pound employee around his arms, leaving his legs free with which he could and did struggle. Before reaching the shower, one of the men warned the others to pick up the struggling employee at a better angle be*393fore they dropped him and hurt him. In fact, the men did drop the struggling man face first to the ground, injuring him seriously.
I think at the point of warning, it became evident to all, as a matter of common sense, that unless they ceased in their efforts to carry out the prank, the pranksters would injure the victim by dropping him. Notwithstanding the warning and the obvious danger that injury was a probable consequence of their actions, the pranksters continued in their prank until the obvious became a reality.
In Alden v. Genie Industries, two employees were painting light poles using the employer’s manlift. 475 N.W.2d 1, 1 (Iowa 1991). The employees’ supervisor told them to continue painting even though one of them warned the supervisor it was too windy to use the manlift. Id. The manlift collapsed while the two employees were painting the light poles, causing one of them to fall to his death. Id. We focused on the warning as generating a genuine issue of material fact on whether the supervisor knew that the fall was a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of danger. Id. at 3.
Likewise, in Sivanson v. McGraw, warning played a key role in generating a genuine issue of material fact on this element of a section 85.20 gross negligence case. 447 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1989). In Swanson, the injured employee was working with a soap that contained highly caustic chemicals such as lye, which could cause severe chemical burns. Id. The fact that the employee told his supervisor twice of a tear in his protective suit and the supervisor told him to protect himself the best he could was significant on the probability-of-injury element. Id.
Contrary to the majority, I would hold that Nelson generated a genuine issue of material fact on the probability-of-injury element and would therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on the gross-negligence claim.
CARTER and NEUMAN, JJ., join this concurrence in part and dissent in part.