recognizing jailers owe a common-law duty “to exercise reasonable diligence with reference to the care of injured, ill, or diseased inmates”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing jailers owe a common-law duty “to exercise reasonable diligence with reference to the care of injured, ill, or diseased inmates”
- “But for section 25A.14(6) ... clearly the district court would have subject-matter jurisdiction ... of the present tort claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CARTER, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result because I agree that under the allegations of the petition it would be possible for the evidence to sustain a claim which does not fall under section 85.29; such circumstance would permit a negligence claim to be maintained under chapter 25A. I believe, however, that the majority opinion unduly limits the circumstances under which this would be possible.
Under the holding of the majority, a determination by the fact finder that the heart attack resulted from decedent’s performance of work would conclusively establish that compensation for his death may only be based on the worker’s compensation law. I believe that it would be possible for the evidence to show that decedent’s heart attack was caused by the performance of work but that his death was not. If this were found to be the case and if it is also shown that the death resulted from the *761 negligence of agents of the state, this circumstance should permit a claim under chapter 25A regardless of whether the heart attack resulted from the performance of work.
McCORMÍCK, J., joins in this special concurrence.