## Facts

- James F. Kaczinski and Michelle K. Lockwood lived on property abutting a rural gravel road in Madison County, Iowa.
- In late summer 2006, they disassembled a trampoline and left its parts on their yard about thirty-eight feet from the road, intending to dispose of them later.
- The trampoline parts were not secured in place.
- During a severe thunderstorm on September 16–17, 2006, strong winds displaced the trampoline mat/top from the yard onto the surface of the roadway.
- On the morning of September 17, 2006, Charles W. Thompson drove along the road, swerved to avoid the trampoline in the roadway, lost control, and rolled his vehicle into a ditch.
- Kaczinski and Lockwood heard the crash, found the trampoline top in the roadway, moved it back into the yard, and assisted Thompson.
- Charles and Karyl Thompson sued, alleging negligence and breach of statutory and common-law duties for allowing an obstruction on the roadway.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa Code § 318.3 (prohibiting placing or causing an obstruction within a highway right-of-way) created a statutory duty under these facts.
2. Whether defendants owed a common-law duty of reasonable care based on leaving unsecured trampoline parts near the roadway.
3. Whether causation and “proximate cause” (scope of liability) could be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment, or required factfinding.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review after the district court and court of appeals upheld summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held Iowa Code § 318.3 did not impose a statutory duty because the obstruction in the roadway resulted from wind displacement rather than intentional placement within the right-of-way.
- The court held defendants owed a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care because their conduct created a risk of physical harm.
- The court adopted a Restatement (Third) framework treating duty as a general obligation of reasonable care for risk-creating conduct, with case-specific foreseeability usually addressed in breach and scope-of-liability analysis.
- The court held Iowa’s scope-of-liability (risk-based) approach governs proximate cause and replaces the “substantial factor” formulation.
- The court concluded a factfinder could determine the accident fell within the risks that made leaving the trampoline unsecured potentially negligent; therefore, summary judgment was improper.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for trial.

## Legal Principles

- A person generally owes a duty to exercise reasonable care when the person’s conduct creates a risk of physical harm to others.
- Foreseeability is typically not a threshold “duty” question for the court in ordinary negligence claims; it is commonly evaluated in breach and scope-of-liability determinations.
- Iowa Code § 318.3 targets affirmative, intentional placement (or causation) of obstructions within a highway right-of-way and does not, by itself, create liability for an obstruction that reaches the roadway through natural forces without intentional placement there.
- Proximate cause in Iowa is analyzed through a scope-of-liability (risk standard) inquiry that limits liability to harms resulting from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious.
- Where reasonable factfinders could differ on whether the plaintiff’s harm resulted from the relevant risks, scope of liability and related foreseeability questions are for the jury rather than resolution on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court reversed summary judgment, holding that although the highway-obstruction statute did not apply to a wind-blown trampoline mat, defendants still owed a common-law duty of reasonable care for risk-creating conduct, and causation under Iowa’s scope-of-liability test presented jury questions on this record.


Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009)