Legal Opinion · Dissent

Spechtenhauser v. City of Dubuque

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided July 23, 1986No. 85-273Published

1DissentWolle, Justice

I dissent because the trial court’s instructions, read together, overstated the defendant city’s duty of inspection and oversimplified the elements of a cause of action for breach of a city’s statutory responsibility “for the care, supervision, and control” of sidewalks and other public grounds. Iowa Code § 364.12(2) (1983).

Neither the controlling statute, which the majority opinion quotes, nor its referenced predecessors have ever described a city’s duty as one of “inspection.” The active inspection duty referred to in our cases has never been held to be coequal with, or somehow independent…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Beach v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
  2. Hovden v. City of DecorahSupreme Court of Iowa · 1968
  3. Geer v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
  4. Roney v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
  5. Jeffers v. City of Sioux CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API