## Facts

- Valerie Foster rode as a passenger in a pickup truck that entered a parking lot and stopped near a car owned by Vince Ankrum and driven by Cassandra Strutz; a third car (“Ruggles” car) also entered and parked nearby.
- Foster exited and stood alongside the pickup shortly before the incident.
- Several young men from the Ruggles car approached Ankrum (in the front passenger seat), yelled at him, hit him through an open window, and tried to pull him out.
- During the altercation, a blow reached into the car and struck the gearshift, which Ankrum believed moved the transmission into reverse.
- Ankrum pulled Strutz down into his lap to shield her; Strutz, still positioned across his lap, pressed the accelerator believing the vehicle was in drive and would move forward.
- The car instead backed up and pinned Foster’s foot between the car’s rear bumper and the side of the pickup.
- The timing evidence suggested a brief but not instantaneous sequence (on the order of seconds, occurring within roughly a minute or two).
- Foster sustained severe foot injuries, underwent multiple surgeries, and suffered permanent impairment with expected future treatment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the sudden-emergency doctrine.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing to submit comparative fault to the jury based on alleged negligence by Foster or a claimed joint enterprise.
3. Whether the jury’s $289,576 damages award was excessive requiring a new trial or remittitur.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the district court’s judgment for Foster.
- The trial court properly refused a sudden-emergency instruction because the circumstances did not require the kind of instantaneous decision contemplated by the doctrine, and the ordinary reasonable-care instruction was sufficient.
- The trial court properly refused a comparative-fault instruction because the record did not support a finding that Foster acted unreasonably or participated in a joint enterprise.
- The damages award was not excessive under the applicable standard; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-trial relief.

## Legal Principles

- A sudden-emergency instruction is reserved for situations involving a sudden, unexpected peril requiring immediate action; it should not be given where the evidence shows more than a momentary opportunity for judgment or where it adds little to the ordinary reasonable-care standard.
- Comparative fault may be submitted to the jury only when supported by evidence that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care contributing to the injury; mere presence near unfolding events, without foreseeability of the specific risk, is insufficient.
- Joint enterprise requires a shared common purpose and an equal right of control; acquaintanceship or being at the same place does not establish the doctrine.
- A jury’s damages award will be upheld absent abuse of discretion; appellate relief is warranted only if the verdict is outside the evidentiary range or so high as to suggest passion or prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Foster’s verdict because the altercation did not justify reducing the negligence standard through a sudden-emergency instruction, the evidence did not support allocating fault to a bystander plaintiff, and the damages fell within the range supported by proof of severe and permanent injury.


Foster v. Strutz, 636 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 2001)