Victor Maldonado v. City of Sibley, No. 21-3096 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff was electrocuted by a powerline owned and operated by the City of Sibley, Iowa. Plaintiff sued the City, in relevant part, for negligence and negligence per se. Plaintiff’s wife also brought a loss of consortium claim. The district court granted summary judgment.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to negligence and affirmed as to negligence per se. The court reinstated the loss of consortium claim. Plaintiff alleged that the City violated the Iowa Administrative Code, specifically (1) its adopted NESC standards and (2) Iowa Administrative Code 199- 25.4(1). The City argued that the NESC, as adopted by Iowa regulations, establishes the standard of care. But it hasn’t pointed to any authority stating that compliance with Iowa regulations is conclusive of the standard of care in ordinary negligence actions. The court reasoned that compliance with Iowa regulations is not dispositive of the standard of care for negligence. Because a jury could find that the City breached its duty, Plaintiff’s negligence claim has genuine issues of fact for trial. Further, the court held that the public-duty doctrine does not bar Plaintiff’s negligence claim because it involves City misfeasance.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. Plaintiff was injured when a piece of downspout he was installing came into contact with the city's electric line; the line met the clearance requirements in place when it was installed, but did not meet current standards. With respect to plaintiff's claim for negligence per se based on a violation of the Iowa Administrative Code section adopting the National Electric Safety Codes, the line was grandfathered and inspection of the line since its installation did not identify any violation of the codes; as a result, the district court properly entered summary judgment for City on the negligence per se claim; however, with respect to plaintiff's negligence claim, a jury could consider failure to comply with the current clearance standard to be evidence of negligence, and the district court erred in entering summary judgment for the city on that claim; the claim was not barred by Iowa's public-duty doctrine because it involved the city's misfeasance.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.