Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

New London Dairy constructed and operated a dairy farm. The herd suffered from health problems, eventually driving the farm into bankruptcy. In 2003, P bought the dairy herd and began managing the dairy. P also experienced problems with the herd, including low milk production and a high death rate. P concluded the herd was being affected by stray voltage originating from the utility system of D. On March 1, 2007, P and New London filed suit against D for nuisance based on the effects of stray voltage on the farm. The district court severed the claims of the two plaintiffs. Both based on nuisance theory, P seeks money damages for past and present harm caused by stray voltage on the dairy farm, and an order to abate and enjoin D from causing stray voltage on the farm. As an advisory ruling, the district court determined Iowa Code section 657.1(2) authorized D to assert a comparative fault defense only against P's claim for future damages, if any, awarded in lieu of injunctive relief. D appealed. D contends the statute permits an electric utility to assert a comparative fault defense against any damages awarded for a nuisance claim. P disagrees and further asserts that the interpretation of section 657.1(2) favored by D would result in an unconstitutional taking and violation of the inalienable rights clause of the Iowa Constitution and posits that the application of comparative fault principles in nuisance actions in which no negligent conduct is asserted against a utility is 'difficult, if not unworkable.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.