## Facts

- C.M. Holdings, L.L.C. owned the Grand Stratford Apartments in Des Moines, Iowa, constructed in 1968 with 32-inch balcony guardrails that met the housing code then in effect.
- By 2011, the Des Moines Municipal Code required 42-inch balcony guardrails for multi-unit residential buildings, subject to a grandfather provision for older structures that remained unaltered.
- A prior owner added decorative plastic lattice to the outside of the original railings; city inspectors later concluded this alteration defeated the property’s grandfathered status.
- The City cited the property for noncompliant railings, and the Housing Appeal Board found a violation but granted a three-month extension to install compliant railings.
- C.M. Holdings ordered new railings but had not installed them when, three days after the extension was granted, Shannon Potts fell from a second-floor balcony and died.
- The decedent’s parents sued for wrongful death and premises liability, alleging negligence per se based on violation of the municipal housing code’s 42-inch requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether violation of a municipal housing code may serve as the predicate for negligence per se.
2. Whether the building’s age and the code’s grandfather provision made the 32-inch railings compliant as a matter of law.
3. Whether the Housing Appeal Board’s time extension to comply provided a legal excuse or otherwise barred negligence-per-se liability during the extension period.
4. Whether the jury was improperly instructed that the 42-inch requirement applied as a matter of law, rather than submitting disputed applicability facts to the jury.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court held negligence per se may be based on violation of a municipal housing code, not only statewide enactments.
- The Court held the Housing Appeal Board’s extension suspended administrative penalties but did not excuse tort liability for a continuing code violation.
- The Court rejected the view that the older standard applied as a matter of law, but held factual disputes affecting grandfathering (including the effect of alterations) must be decided by the jury.
- The Court concluded the jury instructions erroneously treated the 42-inch requirement as automatically applicable, requiring a new trial.
- Disposition: the court of appeals decision was vacated; the district court’s posttrial order was affirmed in part and reversed in part; the case was remanded for a new trial with corrected instructions.

## Legal Principles

- A safety-oriented municipal ordinance may define the standard of care for negligence per se when it is intended to protect a class of persons from a type of harm and the plaintiff’s injury falls within that scope.
- Grandfather provisions in safety codes do not automatically resolve standard-of-care questions; where applicability depends on disputed facts (e.g., alterations affecting exempt status), those facts must be submitted to the factfinder.
- An administrative enforcement extension or grace period does not convert a noncompliant condition into a compliant one and does not, by itself, supply a legal excuse from tort liability.
- Jury instructions must separate legal interpretation from disputed predicate facts and may not direct a finding that a code provision applies when applicability turns on factual determinations.

## Conclusion

The court recognized municipal housing-code violations as a valid basis for negligence per se in Iowa, held that administrative extensions do not excuse tort liability, and required a new trial because disputed facts bearing on grandfathering and code applicability were improperly taken from the jury.


Winger v. C.M. Holdings, L.L.C., 881 N.W.2d 433 (Iowa 2016)