Court Opinion

ID: 9524317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:51:46.010504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:32.464597
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
We have repeatedly observed that issues of proximate cause are ordinarily for the jury and it is only in exceptional circumstances that they may be decided as a matter of law. Gremmel v. Junnie’s Lounge, 397 N.W.2d 717, 721 (Iowa 1986); Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. General Elec. Co., 352 N.W.2d 231, 234 (Iowa 1984); Casey v. Koos, 323 N.W.2d 193, 198 (Iowa 1982); Calkins v. Sandven, 256 Iowa 682, 685, 129 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1964); Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(10).
Ordinarily, the determination of proximate cause in a negligence action involves situations where an injury or loss could have occurred from two or more causes. The trier of fact must decide whether it occurred from that cause upon which the plaintiff’s theory depends. The issue of proximate cause in the present case is unusually complicated, however, because it involves the resolution of a question which is purely hypothetical in nature.
A retrospective determination concerning how a person would have reacted in a situation never presented to that person will always involve some degree of speculation. Consequently, whether in the present case Parsons would have signed the agreement if it had contained a covenant not to compete is a matter which is not susceptible of exact determination. I submit, however, that the difficulty of obtaining precise proof in such situations should not be viewed as an insurmountable obstacle to permitting recovery. Juries should be free to decide the probabilities of the situation based on reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the circumstances of the transaction.
Notwithstanding the inherent uncertainty involved, I believe that, if the facts of the present case are viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, the issue of causation was for the jury to decide. The jury could reasonably have inferred it was more likely than not that Parsons, who had only recently begun working for plaintiff and had been designated as president of the corporation, would have acceded to his employer’s wishes concerning a noncompetition agreement.
ANDREASEN, J., joins this dissent.