Opinion
No. 4-207 / 03-0966
July 14, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Timothy O'Grady and Gordon C. Abel, Judges.
Anita Dairy appeals from the district court's grant of Midwest Dairy's motion for summary judgment. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
John Trewet of Rutherford, Trewet Knuth, Atlantic, for appellant.
Robert Laubenthal, Council Bluffs, and Andrew Hall and Anita Dhar of Grefe Sidney, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Anita Dairy appeals from the district court's grant of Midwest Dairy Sales' motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background Facts.
A reasonable juror could find the following facts from the summary judgment record. Bill and Marsha Kragelund formed Anita Dairy, L.C. (Anita Dairy) when they started a dairy herd in 1993. In late 1995, Anita Dairy decided to expand its operation and consulted with Allan Peterson, owner of Midwest Dairy Sales (Midwest Dairy). Peterson recommended the services of Dairy Systems, Inc. (Dairy Systems) for the installation of new milking stalls. Peterson obtained, and Bill Kragelund approved, a price quote from James Kooiman, a principal of Dairy Systems. It was agreed that Dairy Systems would bill Midwest Dairy for its work and materials and that Anita Dairy would pay Midwest Dairy both for work performed by Dairy Systems and for any equipment supplied directly by Midwest Dairy in the project.
The old milking stalls were removed, and the new stalls were installed in January 1996 by Dairy Systems. During the installation, Dairy Systems disconnected the grounding wires in the barn and failed to reconnect them when installation of the new stalls was completed. Peterson was present during most of the construction but did not participate in the work on the stalls. Instead, he installed other pieces of equipment that he sold to Anita Dairy in connection with the project. Shortly after beginning to use the new stalls, Anita Dairy noticed its cows were consuming less feed, producing less milk, and exhibiting health problems. Several months later it was discovered that the cows were exposed to stray voltage because the electrical system in the dairy barn had been left ungrounded when the new stalls were installed. Anita Dairy consequently suffered substantial losses.
II. Procedural Background.
Anita Dairy brought suit against Dairy Systems, Allan Peterson, and Midwest Dairy Sales. Peterson and Midwest Dairy moved for summary judgment, contending that all of Anita Dairy's damages stemmed from Dairy Systems' failure to reconnect the grounding wires. The district court agreed and granted the summary judgment. A trial was held with the remaining defendants, and Anita Dairy prevailed. Anita Dairy appeals from the grant of summary judgment for Midwest Dairy, contending Midwest Dairy is liable for the negligence of Dairy Systems because Midwest Dairy acted as a general contractor.
III. Scope and Standard of Review.
Our review of the grant of summary judgment is for errors at law. Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267, 270 (Iowa 1996). We will review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dickerson v. Mertz, 547 N.W.2d 208, 212 (Iowa 1998). Summary judgment should only be granted when the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981.
IV. Discussion.
Anita Dairy contends the district court erred when it concluded, as a matter of law, that Midwest Dairy's relationship to Anita Dairy was simply as supplier and installer of equipment unrelated to the cause of Anita Dairy's damages. Anita Dairy asserts a genuine issue of material facts exists as to whether Midwest Dairy acted as a general contractor in the transaction.
The determination whether an existing relationship gives rise to a duty is purely a question of law, yet the existence of that relationship is a question of fact properly reserved for the jury. See Clyde E. Williams Assocs., Inc. v. Boatman, 375 N.E.2d 1138, 1140 (Ind.Ct.App. 1978). The district court concluded "[t]here is no evidence before the Court that Plaintiff relied in any way on Midwest defendants to serve in the capacity of general contractor." We disagree. We find in the record a genuine issue of fact as to whether Midwest Dairy acted as a general contractor on the project, and therefore reverse the district court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment.
Marsha Kragelund testified in her deposition that "Allan was going to help and lead the way" in the installation of the new stalls and that Midwest Dairy provided Dairy Systems with the specifications to build the stalls. Bill Kragelund testified in his deposition that Peterson obtained the price quote on the dairy stalls from Dairy Systems and arranged and was present during the phone conversation between Anita Dairy and Dairy Systems when Dairy Systems was hired to install the new milking stalls. Bill Kragelund further testified that although Midwest Dairy never expressly represented it was acting as a general contractor, he believed Midwest Dairy was a contractor on the project. Mr. Kragelund explained this belief by noting that Midwest Dairy's "action of locating the company who manufactured and provided the stalls . . . implies that [it's] working as a general contractor to accomplish selling [its] used equipment in the process of the changeover." In his affidavit attached to the resistance to the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Kragelund asserted that Anita Dairy relied "exclusively on [Midwest Dairy] to provide an upgraded milking system." Deposition testimony of both Bill and Marsha Kragelund also indicated that all billing and payment for labor and materials supplied in the project by Dairy Systems materials and labor was made by Anita Dairy to Midwest Dairy.
We conclude the above evidence is minimally sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether Midwest Dairy stood in the transaction as a general contractor in relationship to Anita Dairy. Accordingly, we conclude the district court improperly concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact on that issue. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Anita Dairy requests attorney fees associated with this appeal. However, no authority is cited for this request, and we deny it. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)( c).