Protective Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Fedex Ground Package System v. Daniel Griffin ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-0429
Filed March 12, 2014
PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, as
Subrogee of FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DANIEL GRIFFIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Louisa County, John M. Wright,
Judge.
Daniel Griffin appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of
Protective Insurance Company. AFFIRMED.
Eric D. Tindal of Nidey Erdahl Tindal & Fisher, PLC, Williamsburg, for
appellant.
Shannon D. Adams and Brooke Trent of Nelson Law Firm, PLLC,
Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
In an action by insurer Protective Insurance Company (Protective) against
Daniel Griffin to recover property damages resulting from a motor vehicle
collision, Griffin appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of
Protective. Griffin asserts the district court erred in granting the motion because
(1) there is insufficient evidence to establish he was negligent, and (2) there is
insufficient evidence “that no comparative fault existed.” We affirm.
On March 5, 2011, Griffin was travelling southbound on county road W66
coming out of Cotter, Iowa. Upon entering state Highway 92, Griffin’s truck was
broadsided by a westbound semi-truck owned by FedEx Ground Package
System (FedEx).1
Pursuant to a policy of insurance Protective issued to FedEx, Protective
paid out $48,467.02 in claims for damages to the FedEx semi-truck and trailer.
FedEx paid out its deductible portion of the claim in the amount of $500.
Protective, as subrogee of FedEx, filed suit seeking damages of $48,967.02 from
Griffin, claiming he was negligent in failing to yield the right of way to the FedEx
truck upon entering highway 92. Griffin answered, denying he was negligent and
raising the affirmative defenses of comparative fault and “Failure to Avoid Injury
or otherwise Mitigate Damages.”
Protective’s first motion for summary judgment was resisted by Griffin.
Concluding Protective’s supporting materials were insufficient, the district court
denied the motion. Protective then sent a set of requests for admissions to
1
The parties’ district court pleadings and appellate filings erroneously refer to the
semi-truck’s owner as “FedEx Group Package System.”
3
Griffin. When he did not respond to the requests within the requisite thirty days
set forth in Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(2), Protective filed a second
motion for summary judgment on October 18, 2012. This motion was supported
by the unanswered requests for admissions directed to Griffin and an
investigating officer’s affidavit.
A December 7th hearing date was set. On November 26, over five weeks
after the summary judgment motion was filed, Griffin filed a motion to extend the
time for filing a resistance and to continue the hearing. Griffin explained he had
contacted an accident reconstruction expert and needed additional time to raise
funds to retain the expert. Griffin, citing rule 1.981(6), asserted he should be
given the opportunity to present additional affidavits rebutting Protective’s expert.
Protective resisted, noting Griffin had failed to comply with the fifteen-day
timeframe for filing a resistance under rule 1.981(3). Additionally, it relied upon
rule 1.510(2), which provides that the matter contained in requests for admission
are “admitted unless, within [thirty] days after service of the request . . . the party
to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission
a written answer or objection.” Because Griffin failed to answer its requests for
admission within thirty days, it argued its requests were deemed admitted under
that rule and those admissions established there was no genuine issue of
material fact in the matter.
Ultimately, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held as
scheduled. Griffin filed no written response or resistance to the motion for
summary judgment. Although the hearing was unreported, the court noted in its
later ruling that the motion was resisted.
4
In granting Protective’s motion for summary judgment, the district court
concluded:
In [Protective’s] second attempt at summary judgment, the court
notes the affidavit by the law enforcement officer contains information he
gleaned from his personal investigation of the accident. This information,
if offered at trial, would be relevant and admissible evidence that would
help the jury in deciding the issue of negligence. . . . Furthermore,
[Griffin] failed to answer requests for admissions propounded by
[Protective]. [Rule] 1.510(2) deems requests for admissions admitted
unless the defendant serves a written answer or objection within thirty
days after service. In this case, [Griffin] failed to file a written answer or
objection within thirty days of service. Therefore, the court deems the
requests for admissions admitted.
Based upon the record of undisputed facts, the affidavit of Officer
Jonah Grier, and the answers to requests for admissions, the court
concludes [Protective] has provided sufficient evidence to support its
motion for summary judgment. The court would note that [Griffin] failed to
abide by [rule] 1.981 by failing to file any of the necessary pleadings in
response to the motion. [Griffin] cannot rest merely upon his answer to
the petition in order to overcome the motion for summary judgment.
Liability is conclusive upon the foregoing findings. Furthermore,
request for admission [numbers 6 and 7] set forth the amount of damages
paid by [Protective] and the deductible paid by [FedEx] for which [Griffin]
should be liable. It is therefore the court’s conclusion that [Griffin] should
be liable for damages in the amount of $48,967.02.
After the court entered judgment consistent with its ruling, Griffin
appealed.
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment for correction of
errors at law.” See Sallee v. Stewart, 827 N.W.2d 128, 132 (Iowa 2013).
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show there is no genuine issue
of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3); Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc., 818 N.W.2d 244, 253 Iowa
2012). “The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law,” and we “view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Sallee, 827 N.W.2d at 133. It is well-settled
5
that “questions of negligence or proximate cause are ordinarily for the jury,” and
“only in exceptional cases should they be decided as a matter of law.”
Clinkscales v. Nelson Secs., Inc., 697 N.W.2d 836, 841 (Iowa 2005); see also
Virden v. Betts & Beer Constr. Co., Inc., 656 N.W.2d 805, 807 (Iowa 2003)
(noting summary judgment is usually inappropriate in negligence cases).
Griffin never did respond to the requests for admissions and does not
challenge the court’s ruling deeming the requests as admitted. Rather, Griffin
claims the admitted requests for admissions and the officer’s affidavit are “a far
distance from proving that [Griffin] was negligent” and that “[v]irtually none of the
requests for admissions go to the elements of negligence.” Deeming the
requests admitted, we disagree.
Protective’s request for admission number 3 states: “[Griffin] failed to yield
the right of way upon entering Highway 92 and subsequently struck [Protective’s]
insured.” Additionally, the affidavit of the investigating officer states: “[Griffin]
failed to yield the right of way of [Protective’s] insured upon entering Highway 92
and subsequently struck [Protective’s] insured.” The record conclusively
establishes Griffin failed to yield the right of way to the FedEx truck upon entering
Highway 92 from a county road. Failure to yield the right of way is a violation of
the statutory rules of the road. See Iowa Code §§ 321.319 (two vehicles entering
intersection at same time), .321 (entering a through highway), .322 (entering a
stop or yield intersection) (2011). “Absent legal excuse, a violation of [a statutory
rule of the road] constitutes negligence per se or as a matter of law.” Machmer v.
Fuqua, 231 N.W.2d 606, 607 (Iowa 1975); see also Bangs v. Keifer, 174 N.W.2d
372, 374 (Iowa 1970).
6
Here, Griffin advances no legal excuse. Furthermore, Protective’s request
for admission number 4 states: “As a result of the negligent and careless
operation of the automobile driven by [Griffin], [Protective’s] insured sustained
damages to his vehicle.” Request for admission number 8 states: “[Protective]
and their insured were compelled to make all of said expenditures solely by the
reason of [Griffin’s] negligent operation of said vehicle at said time and place of
the accident.” Based upon these admissions, we, like the district court, find no
genuine issue of material fact that Griffin was negligent.
Additionally, requests for admissions numbers 4 and 8 establish Griffin’s
negligence proximately caused the damages. Consequently, there is no genuine
issue of material fact that Griffin’s negligence proximately caused the damages.
Although Griffin does not challenge the amount of damages on appeal,
requests for admissions numbers 6 and 7 establish the amount of damages.
Consequently, there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning the amount
of damages claimed.
In view of the above, the record establishes there is no genuine issue of
material fact as to negligence, proximate cause, and damages. Therefore, we
find this to be one of those exceptional negligence cases where summary
judgment is appropriate.
Next, Griffin alleges “virtually none of [Officer Grier’s] statements support
the absence of comparative fault” and the admitted requests for admissions and
the officer’s affidavit are “a far distance from proving . . . that no comparative fault
existed in [this] negligence action.” Griffin’s assertions harken back to Iowa’s
jurisprudence discarded nearly fifty years ago. Prior to 1965, plaintiffs were
7
required to prove their freedom from contributory negligence. See Peterson v.
Davis, 121 N.W.2d 111, 113 (Iowa 1963) (quoting the 1895 case Gregory v.
Woodworth, 61 N.W. 962, 963 (Iowa 1895): “It is a general a rule, established by
a long line of authority, . . . that the burden is on the plaintiff to show his freedom
from [contributory] negligence.”). In 1965, our legislature abolished this rule.
1965 Iowa Acts ch. 430, § 1, codified at Iowa Code § 619.17 (1966).2 Protective
had no burden to plead and prove freedom from contributory fault. See Iowa
Code § 619.17; see also Johnson v. Junkmann, 395 N.W.2d 862, 868 (Iowa
1986). Griffin’s argument that Protective’s evidence fails to establish an absence
of comparative fault is therefore meritless.
Additionally, Griffin’s mere assertion of the affirmative defense of
comparative fault in his answer provides him no assistance. In responding to a
motion for summary judgment, a party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials in the pleadings, but the response, by affidavits or as otherwise
provided . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue
for trial.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(5); see also Schulte v. Mauer, 219 N.W.2d 496,
500 (Iowa 1974) (considering Iowa R. Civ. P. 237, now renumbered 1.981).
Griffin advances no facts. “Our rules of summary judgment do not permit the
nonmovant [Griffin] to rest on conclusory allegations in the pleadings in the face
2
Iowa Code section 619.17 stated at that time:
In all actions brought in the courts of this state to recover
damages of a defendant in which contributory negligence of the plaintiff
. . . was heretofore a complete defense or bar to recovery, the plaintiff
shall not hereafter, have the burden of pleading and proving his freedom
from contributory negligence, and if the defendant relies upon the
negligence of the plaintiff as a complete defense or bar to plaintiff’s
recovery, the defendant shall have the burden of pleading and proving
negligence of the plaintiff, if any, and that it was a proximate cause of the
injury or damage.
8
of a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Castro v. State, 795
N.W.2d 789, 795 (Iowa 2011).
We find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of Protective. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.