Opinion
No. 4-318 / 03-1219.
June 23, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane Hoffmeyer, Judge.
Frontier Bank appeals the judgment for the City in this tort action based on alleged defects in the City's storm sewer system. AFFIRMED.
Michael P. Schmiedt and Marci L. Iseminger of Crary, Huff, Inkster, Sheehan, Ringgenberg, Hartnett Storm, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant.
James L. Abshier, City Attorney, Sioux City, for appellee.
Heard by Mahan, P.J, and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On July 2, 1999, a rainstorm hit Sioux City, Iowa, dumping three inches of rain within twenty-five minutes. Water entered the lower level of the Frontier Bank building, causing damages. The Bank is located at the intersection of South Lancelot Lane and Singing Hills Boulevard, and is within the Singing Hills watershed basin. The Bank filed suit against the City of Sioux City, alleging the City was negligent in failing to "properly design, construct, inspect and maintain the storm sewer" in the area of the Bank. The case was tried to the court.
The City presented evidence that on April 1, 1997, it had received a report from an engineering firm that warned the storm sewer system in the area of the intersection of Lancelot Lane and Singing Hills Boulevard was not adequate for a ten-year storm, and ponding would occur on Lancelot Lane. The City notified the Bank, which was then under construction, about this problem, and certain changes were made to the Bank's parking lot.
There is a ten percent chance a ten-year storm will occur within any given year. There is a one percent chance a 100-year storm will occur within a year.
The Bank presented expert testimony by Wes Shon, a civil engineer, that the storm on July 2, 1999, was a ten-year storm, and that inadequacies in the storm sewer system caused flooding, which in turn caused damage to the Bank. The City presented expert testimony by Richard Niedergeses, also a civil engineer, that the rainfall rate for the storm on July 2, 1999, was substantially greater than a 100-year storm. Niedergeses testified the Singing Hills storm sewer system was adequate to handle a ten-year storm. The experts agreed the standard for a storm sewer system is to handle a ten-year storm.
The district court determined the City was protected from liability by the discretionary function exemption found in Iowa Code section 670.4(3) (2001). The court also found the storm on July 2, 1999, was greater than a ten-year storm. The court concluded the Bank had failed to show the storm sewer system was the proximate cause of its damages. The Bank appealed.
II. Standard of Review
This case was tried at law, and our scope of review is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. The district court's findings of fact are binding upon us if supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( a).
III. Discretionary Function Exemption
The Bank claims the district court erred in finding the City was immune from liability under the discretionary function exemption found in section 670.4(3). This section provides immunity from
[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an officer or employee of the municipality . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of the municipality or an officer or employee of the municipality, whether or not the discretion is abused.
In determining whether the discretionary function exemption applies, we consider (1) whether the action in question was a matter of judgment or choice for the acting employee, and (2) whether, if an element of judgment is involved in the challenged conduct, the judgment is of a kind that the discretionary function exemption was designed to shield. Goodman v. City of LeClair, 587 N.W.2d 232, 237-38 (Iowa 1998). In applying the rule, we note, "Today, liability is the rule and immunity the exception." Doe v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 652 N.W.2d 439, 443 (Iowa 2002).
In considering a similar claim, the supreme court has stated, "The decision of the City not to maintain and repair its sanitary sewer system in order to prevent inflow and infiltration was an operational decision, and not an exercise of a discretionary function." Hansen v. City of Audubon, 378 N.W.2d 903, 906 (Iowa 1985). We conclude that in the present case, the City's decision not to repair the storm sewer system was not a matter of judgment or choice. Because the first prong of the test has not been met, the discretionary function exemption does not apply.
IV. Proximate Cause
The Bank contends the district court erred in finding it did not present sufficient evidence to show that the City's negligence was the proximate cause of its damages.
The element of proximate cause has two components: (1) the defendant's conduct must have caused the plaintiff's damages, and (2) the policy of the law must require the defendant to be legally responsible for the injury. Gerst v. Marshall, 549 N.W.2d 810, 815 (Iowa 1996). Conduct is a proximate cause of damage when it is a substantial factor in producing damage and the damage would not have happened except for the conduct. Rieger v. Jacque, 584 N.W.2d 247, 251 (Iowa 1998); Bazel v. Mabee, 576 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). There must be some causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the injury or event for which damages are sought. Hasselman v. Hasselman, 596 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1999). Generally, questions of proximate cause are for the fact finder, and only in exceptional cases may they be decided as a matter of law. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( j).
Substantial evidence supports the district court's finding "a rain event of this magnitude is greater than a ten-year rainfall event." The City's expert, Niedergeses, testified the rainfall rate for the July 2, 1999, storm far exceeded that of a ten-year storm. In another civil case against the City, our supreme court described this storm as "a rainstorm of unprecedented proportions." See Fischer v. City of Sioux City, 654 N.W.2d 544, 545 (Iowa 2002).
The experts agreed the standard for a storm sewer system was to handle a ten-year storm. The Bank presented evidence the City's storm sewer system could not even handle a ten-year storm in the area where the Bank was located, and that this inadequacy contributed to the water damage to the Bank. On the other hand, Niedergeses testified the present storm sewer system could handle a ten-year storm. He stated the damage to the Bank was caused by the fact the storm vastly exceeded a ten-year storm. He also stated the Bank contributed to the flooding by the design and grading around the Bank.
We determine the court's decision regarding proximate cause is supported by substantial evidence. The court found the City's expert was more credible on the issue of the cause of the Bank's damages. The Bank has failed to show proximate cause as a matter of law. See Blackhawk Bldg. Sys., Ltd. v. Law Firm of Aspelmeier, Fisch, Power, Warner Engberg, 428 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Iowa 1988) (noting that questions of proximate cause are generally for the fact finder, and rarely may be decided as a matter of law).
We affirm the decision of the district court.