Cyclist Obtains Settlement Despite Tort Immunity
The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported on a legal settlement reached between Bridgid Ruden, the City of Coralville, the State of Iowa, and Horsfield Construciton Company. Ms. Ruden had been riding her bicycle on a trail and lost control of her bike and crashed after hitting a patch of mud on the trail. She was in a coma, had multiple surgeries, and is unable to continue her career as a nurse practitioner. The basis for Ruden's lawsuit was that the Defendants were negligent in the manner in which the trail was designed, constructed and maintained. Generally, the State of Iowa (Iowa Code 669.14) and Municipalities (Iowa Code 670.4) are immune from tort liability, unless the negligence falls under certain exceptions. In this case, Ms. Ruden presented enough evidence to argue that the design of the trail was negligent in that it was not sloped enough to allow for proper drainage. There are very few cases in Iowa where plaintiffs have successfully argued the design exception.
Most people are generally familiar with the legal concept of eminent domain, whereby the government can take private property for public use, upon the payment of just compensation to the property owner. It is found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and similarly found in the Iowa Constitution at Article 1, Section 18. The Iowa Legislature has provided that the power of eminent domain to be enjoyed by state agencies and local governing bodies shall be as delegated by legislative act. In the Iowa Supreme Court case of East Oaks Development, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Transportation ("DOT"), 603 N.W.2d 566, (Iowa 1999), the Court determined that the Legislature has not extended this power of eminent domain for development of recreational trials, stating: "...the DOT has no general eminent domain authority for establishing recreational trails or bikeways." Ultimately, the Court determined that the DOT could exercise eminent domain to re-develop a road by placing a bike trail next to it, since such placement of the trail helped improve traffic on the road. The takeaway from the East Oaks case, however, is that the State does not have eminent domain power for the creation of recreational trails.
You often hear about environmental sites that are required to be cleaned up. However, an Iowa Supreme Court case specifically addresses the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' ("DNR") ability to force cleanup of sites that do not pose a hazardous condition. In First Iowa State Bank v. Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, 502 N.W.2d 164, 168 (1993), the Court noted that "specific statutory authority for adopting administrative rules relating to solid waste is provided in Iowa Code Sexton 455B.304...[h]owever, no reference is made to adoption of rules relating to cleanup of open dumps. Even the rules adopted by the DNR relating to solid waste do not provide for cleanup." Thus, the DNR has the authority to tell you stop making a mess, but in many cases, it cannot make you clean it up. 
On January 17, 2013, the Iowa Attorney General issued an opinion regarding bicycle side path rules, specifically the newly-passed ordinance in the City of Grimes, Iowa. A side path rule is one that prohibits the use of bicycles within the road right-of-way when an adjacent trail is available. The Attorney General noted that the Iowa Code at 321.234(2) provides that a person riding a bicycle on the highway has all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. Further, the Code states that local authorities are without the power to enact, enforce, or maintain any ordinance, rule, or regulation that conflicts with the Code. Ultimately, the Attorney General concluded that the Grimes ordinance violates state law. The City of Grimes has yet to decide how it will proceed in light of this opinion. Tiffany De Masters wrote 