Foster v. Strutz
Iowa Supreme Court
636 N.W.2d 104 (2001)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
Vince Akrum and Cassandra Strutz (defendants) were sitting in a vehicle parked in a lot when they were attacked by several young men. During the attack, one of the assailants struck the vehicle’s gearshift, shifting the vehicle into reverse. Strutz, believing the vehicle to be in drive, put her foot on the accelerator. However, because the vehicle was actually in reverse, the vehicle began moving backward and smashed the foot of Valerie Foster (plaintiff), who was trying to avoid the oncoming vehicle by hopping into the back of her own pickup truck. After these events, Foster brought a suit against Akrum and Strutz, alleging that the defendants’ negligent conduct had caused Foster’s injuries. In district court, Akrum and Strutz requested that the jury be given the more lenient sudden-emergency instruction on the issue of negligence instead of the typical reasonable-person standard. The district court refused to give the more lenient instruction, finding that the events leading to the accident did not qualify as a sudden emergency. Strutz and Akrum appealed the decision, and the court of appeals reversed, finding that the sudden-emergency instruction should have been given. Foster appealed the decision of the court of appeals, arguing that the district court’s refusal to give the instruction was correct.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Larson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
