Insurance Case Summary

Comparative fault allowed in medical malpractice action arising from noncustodial suicide. Husband brought a wrongful death action after his wife committed suicide shortly after being discharged from impatient psychiatric treatment at Mercy Hospital. Two weeks prior to the eventual suicide, the decedent unsuccessfully attempted suicide, and was then placed in a psychiatric ward. She was discharged two days later, and then participated in a "partial hospitalization" program from 9 am to 3 pm daily. Her last visit with a psychiatrist was on June 23, and she committed suicide on June 29. Her husband alleged negligent care, and the defendant hospital alleged the affirmative defense of comparative fault. For the first time, the Court had to decide the issue of whether Iowa's comparative fault statute allows a mental health professional to raise comparative fault based on a patient's suicide. After discussing cases from other jurisdictions, the Court ultimately held that a comparative fault instruction can be appropriate in defense of a noncustodial suicide.

Inference of negligence appropriate where cattle escaped and caused an accident. A Nebraska case arising from a collision between the plaintiff's truck and the defendant's cattle. The defendant's cattle escaped the pen, and the plaintiffs brought this action under a theory of res ipsa loquitur. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The district court noted that the fact that the livestock escaped, alone, is not sufficient to raise an inference of negligence under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed after the plaintiff offered additional evidence. Specifically, the court held that an inference of negligence was appropriate because the plaintiffs offered evidence that the defendants constructed the cattle pen. It was successful over a number of years and an inspection after the incident proved that the pen remained intact. Based on this information, the Court concluded that a jury could find that cattle do not escape from such enclosures in the absence of negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Release against future claims not effective against wife because release did not specifically identify her. Plaintiff broke his leg while helping the Defendants, who were Husband and Wife, move furniture using a rented U-Haul. The liability insurer for U-Haul paid liability limits and the Plaintiff signed a release that purported to release all claims against not only U-Haul, but also the Husband. The Wife was not named in the release. The Husband could not read, and his attorney never explained the release, nor did the attorney ever read the release. The Plaintiff then sought additional compensation from the personal insurance providers for the Defendants, arguing that the release was only intended to release U-Haul, and not the Defendants personally. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, which was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court determined that the release was effective as applied to the Husband as the terms were unambiguous. Regarding the Wife, the Court determined that she was not specifically identified in the release, and as a matter of law, the release was not effective as applied to her.

Tractor owner not liable to mechanic because there was no latent defect. A Nebraska case where a tractor owner called a mechanic to repair his tractor, and the mechanic was also asked to look at a grader. The engine on the grader was not running. When he finished the repair, the mechanic's elbow accidently struck the starter button which caused the grader to lurch forward. The mechanic alleged that the owner was negligent in leaving the ignition switch on, which allowed the machine to lurch forward when the starter button was struck. The Court found no liability because the position of the switch did not constitute a latent defect, it was not mechanically defective, and it was within the mechanic's view when he worked on the grader. The mechanic further admitted that he understood the risk posed by accidentally depressing the starter while the ignition switch was in the on position.

Riggs v. Nickel, 796 N.W.2d 181 (Neb. 2011).