estate-of-david-paul-mcfarlin-by-its-personal-representative-jamie-laass ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1180
Filed September 10, 2015
ESTATE OF DAVID PAUL MCFARLIN,
by Its Personal Representative,
JAMIE LAASS, JAMIE LAASS,
Individually, and JAMIE LAASS,
as parent and next friend of S.L.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Carl J.
Petersen, Judge.
The Estate of David McFarlin appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to the State. AFFIRMED.
Stanley E. Munger and Jay E. Denne, of Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne,
LLP, Sioux City, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anne Updegraff, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
The Estate of David McFarlin (the estate),1 by its personal representative
Jamie Laass (David’s mother), Jamie Laass individually and as parent and next
friend of S.L. (David’s sibling) appeal the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to the State. The estate claims the court erred in finding the
discretionary function immunity exception precludes the State’s liability for David
McFarlin’s death. The estate also claims the public duty doctrine does not
preclude the estate’s cause of action, and the applicable statutes cited by the
estate create a private cause of action against the State. We find the district
court did not err in granting the State’s motion for summary judgment and affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
We incorporate the district court’s statement of the factual background:
This case arises from a boating accident on May 31, 2010
on the waters of Storm Lake, which resulted in the death of a ten-
year-old boy, David McFarlin. David was accompanied by his
mother; his sister; his mother’s companion, Harry Foote; and other
minor family members that day. While boating on the lake, Mr.
Foote’s vessel struck a dredge pipe that was part of an ongoing
dredge operation at Storm Lake. The force of the collision broke
the motor loose, and the motor landed in the passenger
compartment of the boat, striking David. He passed away from his
injuries later that day. Mr. Foote stated during his deposition that
he recognized what he believed were two dredges working
independently on the lake. He was “confused” by the “multiple
buoys” around the dredging operation, and believed he was being
directed towards the area as a means to pass from one side of the
1
The estate filed two other suits arising from the boating accident in this case. The first
suit was brought in the United State District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, the
named defendants included: The City of Storm Lake, Buena Vista County, the Lake
Improvement Commission, Brunswick Corporation; Harry Foote, Randy Redig, Russell
Harrington, and David Botine. The parties reached a settlement and the case was
dismissed. The second suit was brought in the same court against Lakeside Marina,
Inc. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Lakeside.
3
lake to the other. He did not see the dredge pipe in the water until
immediately before impact.
Storm Lake is a meandered, sovereign body of water located
in Buena Vista County, Iowa. Dredging has taken place on Storm
Lake since 2002. While the State of Iowa initially operated the
dredge through a contractor for the first year of its operation, an
organization, the Lakeside Improvement Commission (LIC), was
formed in 2003 in order to take over the operation. The LIC is
comprised of representatives from Buena Vista County, the City of
Storm Lake, the City of Lakeview, and the Lake Preservation
Commission, a citizen organization. Because the lake is sovereign
water, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through
the Natural Resources Commission (Commission), must issue a
permit to allow for the removal of any natural material from the land
or water of the lake. See Iowa Code § 461A.53 [(2010)]. Each
year the LIC submits new dredging plans, which are then approved
by the Commission. Buena Vista County owns the dredge and
accompanying equipment, and the dredge operators are
employees of the City of Storm Lake. The State of Iowa provides
reimbursement for the operation depending on that year’s budget.
The estate filed its petition against the State of Iowa and the DNR on
October 24, 2012. The estate claimed the State’s negligence was the proximate
cause of its damages. Laass and S.L. requested damages for bystander
recovery and loss of consortium.
The State filed a motion for summary judgment on February 28, 2014,2
claiming it possessed sovereign immunity, the estate’s cause of action was not
recognizable or arising from a statutory duty, the public duty doctrine prohibits
the claim, the State was immune under the recreational use statute, and the
State was entitled to discretionary function immunity. The estate filed a
resistance to the State’s motion.
2
The DNR was dismissed as a party to the suit pursuant to the prohibition in the Iowa
Tort Claims act on suits against state agencies for claims defined in Iowa Code chapter
669.
4
The district court held a hearing on April 25, and on July 9, the court
granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. The estate now appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review rulings on motions for summary judgment for the correction of
errors at law. City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 675
(Iowa 2005). “Summary judgment is appropriate only when the entire record
demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Stevens v. Iowa Newspapers, Inc.,
728 N.W.2d 823, 827 (Iowa 2007). A genuine issue of material fact exists if
reasonable minds can differ on how an issue should be resolved. Seneca Waste
Solutions, Inc. v. Sheaffer Mfg. Co., 791 N.W.2d 407, 411 (Iowa 2010). We
examine the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw
all legitimate inferences the evidence bears in order to establish the existence of
questions of fact. Mason v. Vision Iowa Bd., 700 N.W.2d 349, 353 (Iowa 2005).
“A party resisting a motion for summary judgment cannot rely on the mere
assertions in [her] pleadings but must come forward with evidence to
demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact is presented.” Stevens, 728 N.W.2d at
827.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Discretionary Function Immunity
The estate claims the court erred in finding the State was immune from
liability for any claim of negligence pursuant to the discretionary function
5
exception as a waiver of sovereign immunity in Iowa Code section 669.14 (Iowa
Tort Claims Act).
“The Iowa Tort Claims Act prescribes procedures governing tort claims
against the State for the negligent acts of its officers, agents, or employees.”
See generally Iowa Code ch. 669; Schneider v. State, 789 N.W.2d 138, 146
(Iowa 2010). The Act preserves aspects of sovereign immunity by excluding
certain claims from its scope. See Schneider, 789 N.W.2d at 146. Those
exclusions are outlined in Iowa Code section 669.14(!), which provides:
Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the
state, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or
regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or
based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise
or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state
agency or an employee of the state, whether or not the discretion
be abused.
Since the discretionary function exception is rooted in federal tort claims,
our courts have relied heavily on federal decisions for guidance in its application.
Ette ex rel. Ette v. Linn-Mar Cmty. Sch. Dist., 656 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 2002).
The State is entitled to immunity in this case only if it satisfies a two-part test as
set forth in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536–37 (1988). Goodman
v. City of Le Claire, 587 N.W.2d 232, 238 (Iowa 1998) (adopting the Berkovitz
two-part test). “In examining the nature of the challenged conduct, a court must
first consider whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting employee.
This inquiry is mandated by the language of the exception; conduct cannot be
discretionary unless it involves an element of judgment or choice.” Berkovitz,
486 U.S. at 536; Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555–56 (Iowa 2011). If we
6
find the State did not have discretion in the execution of the particular function,
immunity is not available. Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555. If, however, we find the
State exercised judgment in the exercise of the particular function, we then must
determine whether that judgment is the type the legislature intended to shield the
State from liability when it adopted section 669.14(1). See id. “The exception
protects governmental actions and decisions which are made based on
considerations of public policy grounded on social, economic, and political
reasons.” City of Cedar Falls v. Cedar Falls Cmty. Sch. Dist., 617 N.W.2d 11, 19
(Iowa 2000). “[L]iability is the rule and immunity the exception.” Id. (citation
omitted). Thus, we will narrowly construe the discretionary function exception.
Madden v. City of Eldridge, 661 N.W.2d 134, 138 (Iowa 2003).
1. Did the State Exercise Discretion?
“The first step in our analysis is to determine the exact conduct that is at
issue,” and then find if it involved “an element of judgment or choice.” Walker,
801 N.W.2d at 556. For the conduct at issue, the district court cited the
specifications of negligence in the estate’s petition:
(1) Defendants permitted the dredge operator to mark their
dredge pipe with buoys every 100 yards instead of every 10 or 25
yards, misleading Mr. Foote and Plaintiffs into believing they were
being safely directed, at a speed in Mr. Foote’s discretion, through
a channel to the open lake. In effect, Defendants directed Plaintiffs’
powerboat, at planing speed, right at, not away from, the concealed
dredge pipe, causing the fatal crash;
(2) Allowing the placing of and placing the dredge pipe so as
to endanger Plaintiffs’ water craft, in violation of Iowa Code Section
461A.55 which states in pertinent part: “In removing sand, gravel,
or other material from state-owned waters by dredging, the operator
shall so arrange the operator’s equipment that other users of the
lake or stream shall not be endangered by cables, anchors, or any
concealed equipment;”
7
(3) Allowing the dredge pipe to be concealed from Plaintiffs
and Harry Foote, the powerboat’s operator;
(4) Allowing the drainpipe to be in a location where it
interfered with Plaintiffs’ boating operations and their safety;
(5) Allowing dredging equipment to endanger Plaintiffs;
(6) Failing to adequately mark the dredge pipe that Plaintiffs’
powerboat hit;
(7) Failing to warn boaters, including Plaintiffs and Mr. Foote
of the nature, extent and danger of the dredging, including the fact,
but not limited to it, that there were no adequate warnings at or
near that portion of the dredge pipe which Plaintiffs’ boat hit;
(8) In not establishing speed limits or warnings in the vicinity
of the dredge pipe.
The district court also cited to an “Engineer’s Report” drafted by the
estate’s expert, Marjorie Cooke. In the report she listed her findings on the
State’s conduct and potential liability in this case. The findings relevant to this
appeal include:
(1) Boaters should be warned to keep out of the area,
because it is a constant and unpredictable hazard to boaters on the
lake.
(2) The dredge operation was improperly marked, and the
design and installation of the buoys confused boaters.
(3) The State failed to assure installation of exclusion
markers to keep boaters out of the hazardous area.
(4) The State failed to warn boaters of the dangers
associated with the dredge operation.
(5) The State failed to enforce state laws for the safe
operation of the dredge by permitting the arrangement of the
dredge equipment to endanger the use of the lake.
(6) The State permitted an unsafe operation to continue for
six years prior to the incident without enforcing the regulations that
prohibited it.
(7) The State failed to train the lead DNR officer concerning
his duty to enforce these rules.
(8) The State failed to exercise reasonable care for the
protection of boaters on Storm Lake.
The district court distilled these factors into two general areas of alleged
negligent conduct:
8
(1) allowing the dredge to be operated in a manner that
endangered boaters by failing to enforce statutes and regulations
concerning the dredging operation and exercise reasonable care
for the protection of boaters, and (2) failure to adequately warn,
mark, or exclude the area with the appropriate waterway markers or
establish speed limits within the dredging area.
The estate claims the district court erred in its analysis of whether the
mentioned conduct involved acts of discretion as the court focused on a statutory
analysis as opposed to recognizing the basic common law liability of the State for
the acts committed. The estate claims the State had a common law duty to
maintain the lake for the safety of the lake’s users and the State failed to carry its
burden to show discretion was used in its actions. In the alternative, the estate
claims the State violated various applicable statutes, and therefore discretionary
immunity does not apply.
The district court analyzed the applicable statutes, and the estate’s
common law claim, and found discretionary function immunity applied; we agree.
The district court noted the estate failed to establish the statutes in question
created a mandatory duty for State employees. On the contrary, the statutes
applicable to the State’s actions create a permissive approach for State
employees. See e.g., Iowa Code § 462A.1 (Water Navigation Regulations,
Powers and duties of commission) (“The commission may adopt and enforce
rules under chapter 17A as necessary to carry out this chapter and to protect
private and public property and the health, safety, and welfare of the public. In
adopting rules, the commission shall give consideration to the various uses to
which they may be put by and for public and private purposes, the preservation
of each body of water, its bed, waters, ice, banks, and public and private property
9
attached thereto, and the need for uniformity of rules relating to the use,
operation, and equipment of vessels and vehicles.”). Additionally, the district
court reasoned the Iowa code section governing the issuance and renewal of the
permit for the dredging operation contains discretionary language. See id.
§ 461A.53 (1) & (2) (“The commission may enter into agreements for the removal
of . . . natural materials from [ ] waters under the jurisdiction of the commission.
The commission may specify the terms and consideration under which such
removal is permitted and issue such written permits for such removal.”). The
statutes governing the conduct in this case create discretion or “an element of
judgment or choice” in State employees to implement safety regulations
concerning the dredging operation.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 556.
2. Is This the Type of Discretion the Legislature Intended
to Shield From Immunity?
Next, applying the second factor of the discretionary immunity function
exception, we agree with the district court the challenged conduct, in this case, is
the sort of conduct the legislature intended to shield from liability. In determining
if the State’s conduct is susceptible to liability, our supreme court has asked if the
conduct in question was based on an “ad hoc decision, tailored to the particular
circumstances” or, if the decision could have been based on broader
considerations of public policy. See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 365–66
(Iowa 2005). In Anderson our supreme court found the State was not liable, due
to discretionary function immunity, for a student’s injury caused from falling on an
icy sidewalk after leaving the University of Northern Iowa library. Id. at 366. The
10
student claimed the State was negligent for allowing the library to remain open
during a winter storm and for failing to remove ice from a walkway. Id. at 361.
The student conceded the State proved the first prong of the discretionary
function immunity test, but argued the State’s decision was not based on broader
public policy considerations. Id. at 364. After providing a thorough analysis of
the discretionary function immunity jurisprudence3 in Iowa, our supreme court
disagreed and noted:
The common thread running through all these decisions
defeating the discretionary function immunity was the record in
each of these cases did not show the governmental entity based its
actions on the required policy considerations, as distinguished from
an action arising out of the day-to-day activities of the business of
government. Unless a governmental entity can demonstrate that
when it exercised its judgment, it genuinely could have considered
and balanced factors supported by social, economic, or political
policies, we will not recognize the discretionary function immunity.
Graber, 656 N.W.2d at 165.
Applying this standard to the present case, we think the
district court was correct in concluding Mercado and the State were
3
Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 561 (concluding the decisions made by a correctional facility
staff in the supervision of inmates did not involve consideration of broad public policy
factors); Madden, 661 N.W.2d at 138 (finding building inspector’s decision to not perform
a required inspection was an ad hoc decision tailored to the specific circumstances, and
not one grounded in considerations of public policy); Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656
N.W.2d 157, 164–66 (Iowa 2003) (finding a City’s decision in negligently timing
streetlights was not based on “anyone of authority balanc[ing] any priorities of competing
interest” or “legitimate policy considerations,” rather it was based on “a generic safety
consideration”); Ette, 656 N.W.2d at 68 (finding school’s decision to send a young
student on an unsupervised cross-country bus trip was not a decision driven by public
policy implications); Messerschmidt v. City of Sioux City, 654 N.W.2d 879, 881–83 (Iowa
2002) (finding the removal of traffic barricades preventing cars from entering a parade
area and resulting in serious injury to a bystander was an ad hoc decision, and no
evidence was presented that “anyone of authority weighed any social, economic, or
political policies before lifting the barricade”); A. Doe v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist.,
652 N.W.2d 439, 442 (Iowa 2002) (finding school’s decision to hire, retain, and
supervise a teacher lacked broader policy considerations that the legislature intended to
insulate from liability); City of Cedar Falls, 617 N.W.2d at18–19 (finding discretion
function immunity inapplicable for the negligent death of a student as the supervising
teacher’s judgments did not involve broader considerations of public policy).
11
entitled to immunity under the discretionary function exception. Our
review of the record reveals the university had a policy to continue
the normal hours of operation for the library during periods of
severe weather. The purpose of keeping the library open was to
afford the maximum opportunity for students and staff to utilize the
library facilities. Keeping the library open furthered the public policy
of providing the best college education to its students at a
reasonable cost. Persons who desired to use the library for
studying or research needed to count on the fact the library would
be available to them during its normal hours of operation, except
when it would be impossible to keep it open those hours.
Here, the decisions surrounding the operation of the dredge and the
placement of warning markers around the dredge were not based on “ad hoc”
decisions or day-to-day activities of the business of government, but were based
on broader public policy considerations. The State has “demonstrate[d] that
when it exercised its judgment, it genuinely could have considered and balanced
factors supported by social, economic, or political policies.” Id.4
The State’s consideration of public policy factors is demonstrated by the
testimony of the State officials who dealt with the permitting and operation of the
dredge. Mike McGhee, the project manager for the Lake Restoration Program at
Storm Lake,5 testified that “dredging is one of the components that we’re using to
4
Our ruling in this case is also supported by federal precedent. See e.g., Harrell v. U.S.,
443 F.3d 1231, 1236–37 (10th Cir. 2006) (finding discretionary immunity applied for the
Coast Guard’s placement and service of a buoy because these decisions were policy
based); Holmes v. Parker, No. CV 211-111, 2013 WL 831416, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 6,
2013) (finding decisions surrounding the placement and maintenance of navigational
aids on a rocky jetty were policy based discretionary decisions); Winston v. Jackson
Cnty. Conservation Bd., No. C99-1013MJM, 2001 WL 34152073, at *1 (N.D. Iowa Sept.
26, 2001) aff’d, 36 F. App’x 572 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding discretionary function immunity
applicable where swimmer in county government operated lake was injured by a boater;
“it is clear that the Board could have considered a wide range of policy factors in making
its decisions regarding supervision of the Lake; thus, “whether or not it actually did so is
immaterial”).
5
The Lake Restoration Program is a DNR statewide initiative, and McGhee also serves
as its Coordinator.
12
achieve our water quality goals at Storm Lake.” The DNR provides funds for the
yearly operation of the dredge and the local organization, the LIC, owns and
operates the dredge. Julie Sievers, a DNR environmental specialist who
primarily focuses on public drinking water systems and is the DNR
representative6 to the LIC, testified the dredging of Storm Lake improves the
water quality of the lake and thus improves fisheries. Siever’s role in reviewing
the dredging plan each year is to ensure water quality, shoreline preservation,
and proper spoil site deposit. DNR Officer Brent Koppie provided testimony
concerning the operation and safety measures associated with the dredge.7
Koppie, as a DNR officer, noted he had the authority to suggest changes for the
dredge operation if he felt it was interfering with the navigation of the lake, and
had done so on two occasions in the past.8 Since the dredge is operating
pursuant to the dredge permit, Koppie testified he did not have the authority to
actually stop the dredge operation. Koppie stated he expected all boaters to be
aware of the purpose and configuration of buoys in the lake. He noted, “So I
guess in my opinion the vast majority of individuals, regardless of their education
level, their experience level, would see several buoys as an indication of a
hazard.” Signs were placed at every Storm Lake boat ramp warning boaters of
the dredge pipe. The buoys were placed approximately 100 yards apart, and
6
Sievers serves as an ex officio member of the LIC. She does not have the authority to
vote on the LIC’s actions, and operates in an advisory capacity to the LIC.
7
Koppie also provides assistance in determining if sovereign land is being encroached
upon by construction and if a permit is required for work done on sovereign land. In his
position, Koppie did not take part in the granting of the LIC’s dredging permit.
8
Koppie testified he recalled one other accident involving the dredge pipe. In that
incident, a boater struck the dredge pipe and tore the motor from the boat.
13
were affixed to seams in the dredge pipe. Koppie stated he did not have
concerns with the placement or number of buoys.
Based on the record, we find the State “genuinely could have considered
and balanced factors supported by social, economic, or political policies.” Id.Therefore, we find the district court did not err in finding the State immune from
liability pursuant to the discretionary function exception.
B. Public Duty Doctrine
The estate claims the district court erred in finding the “public duty
doctrine” precludes the estate’s claim against the State. Specifically, the estate
claims the court erred by focusing solely on statutory duties of care and not also
on common law duties of care, including: a failure to train employees, negligence
in failing to properly supervise and control the dredging operation. The estate
also asserts the common law theory of premises liability should apply.
The district court held, and we affirmed, the State was entitled to immunity
under the discretionary function exception regarding the issuance and renewal of
the permit for the dredging operation and any decision concerning the
implementation of safety measures surrounding the dredge. As a result, we only
consider the estate’s claims concerning the operations of the dredge, which is
governed by statute.
“In determining whether a defendant owes a legal duty to a plaintiff, three
factors usually control: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) reasonable
foreseeability of harm to the person who is injured, and (3) public policy
considerations.” Raas v. State, 729 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Iowa 2007). The State
14
claims the public duty doctrine precludes its liability in this case. The doctrine
provides “if a duty is owed to the public generally, there is no liability to an
individual member of that group.” Kolbe v. State, 625 N.W.2d 721, 729 (Iowa
2001) (ruling State owed no duty to plaintiff bicyclist when it issued a driver’s
license to third party whose vehicle struck plaintiff).
We have routinely held that a breach of duty owed to the public at
large is not actionable unless the plaintiff can establish, based on
the unique or particular facts of the case, a special relationship
between the State and the injured plaintiff consistent with the rules
of Restatement (Second) of Torts section 315.
Id. The district court found the State did not have a “special duty” to the estate;
we agree. As the district court stated:
Therefore, the Court finds any duty owed to enforce
statutory, violations against the dredge operators was owed to the
general public, just as the duty to enforce the rules of the road
against dangerous drivers are owed to the public in general.
Plaintiffs frame their argument around the failure of the State to
enforce statutory violations against the dredge operators. Plaintiffs
particularly cited section 461A.55 in paragraph 26(b) of their
Petition, which prohibits the placing of dredge equipment so as to
endanger other users of the water. Paragraph 26(c) alleges the
State allowed the dredge pipe to be concealed, which is also a
statutory violation of section 461A.55. Finally, paragraph 26(c)
plainly alleges the State allowed the dredging equipment to
endanger Plaintiffs, which is also a violation of section 461A.55.
This statute is imposed against the operators of the dredge and is
punishable as a simple misdemeanor—much like rules of the road
are imposed against drivers on the road.
....
Plaintiffs are not part of a specialized class to which the
State owed a duty; instead, they are part of the general public that
has an "inviolable right" to access the lake. See Kolbe v. State,
625 N.W.2d 721, 728 (Iowa 2001) (denying plaintiffs’ argument that
they were part of a specialized class as "the rightful users of the
road"). To establish a duty owed by the State to third parties for the
failure to enforce criminal violations against other operators on the
waters of Storm Lake would create a “limitless interpretation which
would subject the State, and its limited resources, to limitless
15
liability” for every accident that occurs between two private vessels
on sovereign water.
We find the district court was correct in finding the public duty doctrine
precludes the estate’s claim against the State.
C. Private Cause of Action
The estate claims the district court erred in finding the statutes the estate
cited (located in Iowa Code chapters 461A and 462A) do not create a private
cause of action because these statutes can be used to show negligence or
negligence per se.
“In order for a negligence claim to lie for violation of a statutory duty, such
provision must be made, either explicitly or implicitly, by the statute. In the
absence of such a provision, the violation of a statutory duty does not give rise to
a private cause of action.” Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 288 (Iowa 1995)
(citation omitted). If the statute does not explicitly create a private cause of
action, the question is then can a private cause of action be implied in the
statute. Seeman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 322 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Iowa 1982). In
answering this question, Iowa has adopted a four-factor test established by the
United States Supreme Court in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975). See id.
1. Is the plaintiff a member of the class for whose benefit the
statute was enacted?
2. Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or
implicit, to either create or deny such a remedy?
3. Would allowing such a cause of action be consistent with
the underlying purpose of the legislation?
4. Would the private cause of action intrude into an area
over which the federal government or a state administrative agency
holds exclusive jurisdiction?
Id. (citing Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. at 78).
16
After analyzing the relevant statutes, the district court applied this test in
the present case and concluded:
[T]he Court holds the legislature did not intend for any of the cited
sections within Chapters 461A or 462A to provide a private remedy.
Additionally, if the Court refuses to imply a cause of action for
statutory violations, the Court likewise refuses to imply a tort arises
from violation of administrative rules enacted to carry out statutory
directives. See Kolbe, 625 N.W.2d at 726.
We find the district court properly refused to imply a cause of action from
chapters 461A and 462A.
D. Recreational Use Statute
This issue was raised below, but the district court did not reach this issue
in its opinion. Error was not preserved on this issue. “It is a fundamental
doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and
decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v.
Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). “When a district court fails to rule
on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a
motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” Id.IV. CONCLUSION
We find the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the
State. The discretionary function immunity exception precludes the estate’s
negligence claims based on the State’s enforcement of statutes concerning the
dredge operation and the State’s duty to properly warn boaters of the dredge.
The public duty doctrine precludes the estate’s claim, as the State did not owe a
“special duty” to the estate. A private remedy does not exist against the State,
17
pursuant to Iowa Code chapters 461A and 462A. Finally, error was not
preserved on the recreational use statute, and in the alternative, the statute is
inapplicable to this case. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.