Thompson v. Kaczinski

Supreme Court of Iowa · 2009 · Torts

774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligenceDutyCausationScope of liabilitysummary judgmentcommon law dutystatutory duty

Facts

The defendants lived on property abutting a rural gravel road and disassembled a trampoline, leaving its parts unsecured in their yard about thirty-eight feet from the road for later disposal. After a severe thunderstorm, wind moved the top of the trampoline from the yard onto the road. Later that morning, Charles Thompson encountered the trampoline while driving, swerved to avoid it, lost control, and his car rolled into the ditch. The plaintiffs sued, alleging statutory and common law negligence based on allowing the trampoline to obstruct the roadway.

Issue

Whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs a statutory duty under Iowa Code section 318.3 or a common law duty of reasonable care, and whether the plaintiffs' injuries were outside the scope of liability as a matter of law. Also at issue was whether foreseeability should be used in the duty analysis or instead reserved for breach and scope-of-liability determinations.

Rule

In cases involving physical harm, an actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor's conduct creates a risk of physical harm, and courts should deny or limit duty only in exceptional categories of cases based on articulated policy or principle, not on case-specific foreseeability. Foreseeability belongs in the negligence and scope-of-liability analysis. For scope of liability, an actor's liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious. Iowa Code section 318.3 does not impose a statutory duty for merely negligent or unintentional placement of an obstruction in a highway right-of-way.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Ohio, Dana Mercer stacked loose corrugated metal sheets in her side yard about thirty feet from a county road after taking down an old shed. After a night of heavy wind, one sheet ended up in the roadway, and Luis Ortega crashed his motorcycle while trying to avoid it.

In Luis's negligence suit, Dana argues she owed no duty because she could not specifically foresee that a motorcyclist would encounter the sheet the next morning. How should the court rule on duty?

Explanation. In ordinary cases involving physical harm, an actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor's conduct creates a risk of physical harm. The majority held foreseeability should not be used in the duty analysis on a case-specific basis; it belongs to breach and scope of liability. Because no articulated policy justifies exempting adjoining landowners as a class, the court should recognize a common law duty.