Thompson v. Kacinski - Spann Tort Law Case Brief

Thompson v. Kacinski Rule of Law In Iowa, the scope-of-liability test replaces the “substantial factor” test and requires a fact finder to limit an actor’s liability to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious. Facts James Kacinski (defendant) and Michelle Lockwood (defendant) (collectively Defendants) disassembled a trampoline and placed the pieces untethered near the roadway in front of their house in order for them to be picked up during trash collection. One evening, a storm with heavy winds blew the top of the trampoline into the middle of the road. The following day, Charles Thompson and his wife (the Thompsons) were driving along the road. Charles swerved to miss the trampoline top, lost control of his vehicle, and entered a ditch where the car rolled several times. The Thompsons filed suit against Defendants for negligence. Defendants moved for summary judgment and argued they owed no duty under the circumstances to the Thompsons because the risk that the trampoline top would move from their yard to the middle of the roadway was not foreseeable. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion. The Thompsons appealed. The court of appeals afÏrmed the trial court’s ruling. The Iowa Supreme Court granted certiorari to review. Issue In Iowa, does the scope-of-liability test replace the “substantial factor” test and require a fact finder to limit an actor’s liability to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious? Holding and Reasoning (Hecht, J.) Yes. Although Defendants did not owe a statutory duty of care to the Thompsons to avoid obstructing the highway right-of-way, they did owe a common law duty to exercise reasonable care. In the Restatement (Third) of Torts, the drafters note that an actor’s liability is limited to those physical harms caused to others that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious. This principle is known as the “risk standards” and is intended to prevent the imposition of liability in situations where it is not warranted. It does so by limiting liability’s scope to the reasons why the actor should be legally liable in the first instance. The scope-of-liability test is fact intensive and requires the court to consider and analyze all of the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious and then make a determination of whether the harm at issue is a result of any of those risks. The scope-of-liability test is similar to a “foreseeability” test in that both tests exclude liability for harms that were sufÏciently unforeseeable at the time of the allegedly-negligent conduct. Here, Defendants’ actions of placing trampoline parts, untethered, near a busy roadway is not so clear as to warrant the trial court’s issuance of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. A reasonable fact finder could determine that Defendants should have known high winds occasionally occur in Iowa during storms and that a gust of wind could move the trampoline into the roadway. Further, Defendants did not look to see if the trampoline moved into the roadway immediately after the storm had passed. Therefore, a reasonable fact finder could find the harm suffered by the Thompsons resulted from the risks that made the Defendants’ conduct negligent. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.