The Iowa Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the City of Davenport and two of its employees, effectively siding with the victims of the tragic Davenport Hotel building collapse that occurred in May 2023. The court ruled that the qualified immunity provisions of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act do not apply to the common law tort claims brought against the city defendants.
The Background of the Case
The case stems from the partial collapse of the Davenport Hotel apartment building, a disaster that resulted in three deaths and numerous injuries. Following the collapse, multiple lawsuits were consolidated in the district court, naming the City of Davenport, the building’s owners, and engineers as defendants.
The City of Davenport and two of its employees, collectively referred to as the “City defendants,” sought to dismiss the claims against them, arguing they were protected by qualified immunity under Iowa Code § 670.4A of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act. This Act provides immunity to municipalities in certain cases. The district court denied their motion, leading the City defendants to appeal.
What is Qualified Immunity?
Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and there is no evidence that the official violated any law. The Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act allows municipalities immunity from liability under certain conditions.
The Key Legal Question
The central issue before the Iowa Supreme Court was whether the qualified immunity provisions in § 670.4A of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act apply to common law tort claims, such as negligence and nuisance, which were the basis of the claims against the City defendants.
The Court’s Reasoning
The court ultimately answered this question with a clear “no.” The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of § 670.4A and its applicability to common law tort claims.
The City defendants argued that because the Act’s definition of “tort” includes “negligence,” qualified immunity should apply to negligence claims. However, the plaintiffs argued that the language of § 670.4A, which grants immunity for the “deprivation” of a “right, privilege, or immunity secured by law,” was a term of art borrowed from federal law (specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1983). They argued that, like its federal counterpart, this language was intended to apply only to claims for constitutional or statutory violations, not common law tort claims.
The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs. The court cited its recent ruling in *Doe v. Western Dubuque Community School District* as a precedent. In *Doe*, the court held that § 670.4A applies only to claims involving state constitutional torts or statutory violations, not common law claims. The court found that the legislature, by using similar language to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, intended to address state constitutional torts, not to radically alter common law negligence claims against government actors. The court also noted that the “clearly established” standard, which is part of the qualified immunity analysis, is difficult to apply to common law negligence claims.
In this case, the plaintiffs’ claims against the City defendants were based on common law negligence and nuisance. The court found that the fact that the “duty” element of the negligence claim might stem from a statute or municipal code did not mean the claim was based on a “right, privilege, or immunity secured by law” that would trigger immunity under § 670.4A.
The Impact of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision means that the qualified immunity provisions of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act do not shield the City of Davenport and its employees from the common law tort claims related to the hotel collapse. Because § 670.4A does not apply, the City defendants’ appeal under its provisions was dismissed. The case will now proceed in the lower court, where the City defendants will have to defend against the negligence and nuisance claims.
This ruling is a win for the victims of the Davenport Hotel collapse. It allows them to pursue their claims against the City of Davenport without the added hurdle of qualified immunity.