Mollie Joan Ashton v. Nicholas Allan Brock, Todd Gohlman, Joel Congdon and John Nordyke ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1257
Filed June 10, 2015
MOLLIE JOAN ASHTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
NICHOLAS ALLAN BROCK,
TODD GOHLMAN, JOEL
CONGDON and JOHN NORDYKE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Michael J. Moon,
Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of
the defendants. AFFIRMED.
Tod J. Beavers of Law Offices of Tod J. Beavers, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Jason C. Palmer and Catherine M. Lucas of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor
& Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
The plaintiff Mollie Ashton f/k/a Brock appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment adverse to her and in favor of three law enforcement officer
defendants. This appeal presents the question of whether law enforcement
officers can be liable for alleged negligence in investigating alleged criminal
activity and preventing harm to a victim in the absence of a special relationship
between the law enforcement officers and the alleged victim. The answer is long
settled in the negative, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We review the district court's order on summary judgment for correction of
errors at law. See Howard v. Schildberg Constr. Co., Inc., 528 N.W.2d 550, 552
(Iowa 1995); Farm & City Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 509 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Iowa
1993). We view the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the
summary judgment motion. See Gerst v. Marshall, 549 N.W.2d 810, 812 (Iowa
1996). We must decide whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and
whether the law was correctly applied. See Farm & City Ins. Co., 509 N.W.2d at
489.
We need not repeat Ashton’s allegations in full because they are
immaterial to the resolution of this matter. When viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, the summary judgment record showed the following. 1
1
The defendants contend the judgment of the district court could be affirmed on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to timely file a resistance to the motion for summary
judgment and failed to file a motion pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 1.981(6) to seek
additional discovery in support of her resistance. We agree the plaintiff failed to timely
file a properly supported resistance to the motion and failed to file a motion to seek
additional discovery. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(6); see also Bitner v. Ottumwa Comm.
School Dist., 549 N.W.2d 295, 299 (Iowa 1996). We need not decide this appeal on that
3
Ashton formerly was married to defendant Nicholas Brock. Defendants Todd
Gohlman, Joel Congdon, and John Nordyke were employed as law enforcement
officers by the Ames Police Department at all times material to this proceeding.
In May 2011, the plaintiff and Brock were cohabiting although divorced. The
Ames Police Department was called to the family’s residence on at least three
occasions in response to domestic disturbances. After the police department
responded to the domestic disturbance calls, Ashton contacted the Ames Police
Department in person and by telephone to lodge further complaints against Brock
and against the officers involved in the case. Officers Gohlman and Nordyke and
Detective Congdon are among the law enforcement officers who became
involved in the investigation and processing of Ashton’s complaints. Ultimately,
Detective Congdon closed his investigation after the case was referred to the
assistant county attorney and the assistant county attorney directed the case be
closed without charges filed. In her amended petition, Ashton contended that
Brock “physically assaulted, mentally abused,” and “stole property” from the
plaintiff during the month of May 2011 and then for some undetermined period of
time after. In her amended petition, plaintiff alleged Gohlman, Nordyke, and
Congdon were negligent in “their failure to properly and adequately protect the
Plaintiff from the wrongful actions and conduct of Defendant Brock.”
To establish negligence, the plaintiff was required to establish, among
other things, that the defendants owed her a duty. See Donahue v. Washington
Cnty., 641 N.W.2d 848, 850 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002). The question of whether a
ground, however, as we conclude the district court correctly decided the motion on the
merits.
4
duty exists is a question of law for the court. See Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774
N.W.2d 829, 834 (Iowa 2009). Plaintiff does not contend Thompson changes our
analysis of the issue. Iowa law does not recognize a tort for negligent law
enforcement response and investigation in the absence of a special relationship
between the plaintiff and law enforcement. See Morris v. Leaf, 534 N.W.2d 388,
390 (Iowa 1995) (“Iowa courts have consistently held that law enforcement
personnel do not owe a particularized duty to protect individuals; rather, they owe
a general duty to the public.”); Mastbergen v. City of Sheldon, 515 N.W.2d 3, 5
(Iowa 1994) (“Consistent with the common-law principles recognized by those
sections, we have recognized two exceptions when law enforcement may be
liable for damages: (1) when the police create the situation that places the
citizen's life in jeopardy and (2) when the police take a citizen into custody and
control.”); Smith v. State, 324 N.W.2d 299, 302 (Iowa 1982) (holding “law
enforcement officers have no liability for mere negligence in the investigation of
crime”); Hawkeye Bank & Trust Co. v. Spencer, 487 N.W.2d 94, 96-97 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1992) (defining special relationship and holding police promises of extra or
special watches on citizen's property do not create exception to general rule of
nonliability for negligence in investigating criminal activity). Although the plaintiff
asserts there was a special relationship between her and the law enforcement
defendants, she did not produce evidence of any “special relationship” within the
meaning of our case law. See Mastbergen, 515 N.W.2d at 5; see also Hawkeye
Bank & Trust, 487 N.W.2d at 96.
5
The district court correctly determined that the issue presented was a
question of duty, that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a duty, and
that the officer defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The
judgment of the district court is affirmed without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R.
21.26(a), (c), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.