care standard in Iowa

2016See O’Neil v. Windshire Copeland Assocs., L.P., 197 F. Supp. 2d 507, 510 (E.D.

2016The requirement is sufficiently specific to prescribe a standard of care the violation of which constitutes negligence per se. - See O’Neil v. Windshire Copeland Assocs., L.P., 197 F.Supp.2d 507, 510 (E.D.Va.2002) (ruling that apartment owner was negligent per se for having balcony, guardrail lower than required by city building code); Heath v. La Mariana Apartments, 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664, 669-70 (2008) (violation of guardrail spacing requirement in ordinance would be negligence per se but for grandfather provision excusing landlord from obligation to upgrade railings to current code); c

2017See Alcala, 880 N.W.2d at 709 (collecting cases requiring evidence of an employer’s standard of care and 73 its breach to recover under a negligent-training theory); Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1990) (noting that in a professional negligence action, “[o]rdinarily, evidence of the applicable standard of care—and its breach—must be furnished by an expert”); Brandt v. Richter, 159 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1968) (allowing testimony of farm safety expert and discussing precedent rejecting argument such testimony improperly altered the standard of care).

2017See Alcala, 880 N.W.2d at 709 (collecting cases requiring evidence of an employer’s standard of care and 73 its breach to recover under a negligent-training theory); Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1990) (noting that in a professional negligence action, “[o]rdinarily, evidence of the applicable standard of care—and its breach—must be furnished by an expert”); Brandt v. Richter, 159 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1968) (allowing testimony of farm safety expert and discussing precedent rejecting argument such testimony improperly altered the standard of care).

2017See Alcala, 880 N.W.2d at 709 (collecting cases requiring evidence of an employer’s standard of care and 73 its breach to recover under a negligent-training theory); Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1990) (noting that in a professional negligence action, “[o]rdinarily, evidence of the applicable standard of care—and its breach—must be furnished by an expert”); Brandt v. Richter, 159 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1968) (allowing testimony of farm safety expert and discussing precedent rejecting argument such testimony improperly altered the standard of care).

2017See Alcala, 880 N.W.2d at 709 (collecting cases requiring evidence of an employer’s standard of care and 73 its breach to recover under a negligent-training theory); Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1990) (noting that in a professional negligence action, “[o]rdinarily, evidence of the applicable standard of care—and its breach—must be furnished by an expert”); Brandt v. Richter, 159 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1968) (allowing testimony of farm safety expert and discussing precedent rejecting argument such testimony improperly altered the standard of care).

2017See Alcala, 880 N.W.2d at 709 (collecting cases requiring evidence of an employer’s standard of care and 73 its breach to recover under a negligent-training theory); Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1990) (noting that in a professional negligence action, “[o]rdinarily, evidence of the applicable standard of care—and its breach—must be furnished by an expert”); Brandt v. Richter, 159 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1968) (allowing testimony of farm safety expert and discussing precedent rejecting argument such testimony improperly altered the standard of care).

2017See Alcala, 880 N.W.2d at 709 (collecting cases requiring evidence of an employer’s standard of care and 73 its breach to recover under a negligent-training theory); Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1990) (noting that in a professional negligence action, “[o]rdinarily, evidence of the applicable standard of care—and its breach—must be furnished by an expert”); Brandt v. Richter, 159 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1968) (allowing testimony of farm safety expert and discussing precedent rejecting argument such testimony improperly altered the standard of care).

2026Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Sols., LLC, 897 N.W.2d 553, 600 (Iowa 2017).

2026In response, the school district points us to our supreme court’s opinion in Haskenhoff requiring expert evidence of standard of care. 897 N.W.2d at 600 (“Expert testimony on the standard of care or standard of practice is generally permitted in negligence actions.”).

2019See Hill, 590 N.W.2d at 56 .

2019See Iowa Code § 232.102 (9) (requiring the DHS to “make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the child”); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000) (noting that “the scope of the efforts by the DHS to reunify parent and child after removal impacts the burden of proving those elements of termination electronic record provided to us on appeal can be difficult to navigate, we found these record citations to be especially helpful in aiding our review. 5 which require reunification efforts”).

2016The requirement is sufficiently specific to prescribe a standard of care the violation of which constitutes negligence per se. - See O’Neil v. Windshire Copeland Assocs., L.P., 197 F.Supp.2d 507, 510 (E.D.Va.2002) (ruling that apartment owner was negligent per se for having balcony, guardrail lower than required by city building code); Heath v. La Mariana Apartments, 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664, 669-70 (2008) (violation of guardrail spacing requirement in ordinance would be negligence per se but for grandfather provision excusing landlord from obligation to upgrade railings to current code); c

2016The requirement is sufficiently specific to prescribe a standard of care the violation of which constitutes negligence per se. - See O’Neil v. Windshire Copeland Assocs., L.P., 197 F.Supp.2d 507, 510 (E.D.Va.2002) (ruling that apartment owner was negligent per se for having balcony, guardrail lower than required by city building code); Heath v. La Mariana Apartments, 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664, 669-70 (2008) (violation of guardrail spacing requirement in ordinance would be negligence per se but for grandfather provision excusing landlord from obligation to upgrade railings to current code); c

2016The requirement is sufficiently specific to prescribe a standard of care the violation of which constitutes negligence per se. - See O’Neil v. Windshire Copeland Assocs., L.P., 197 F.Supp.2d 507, 510 (E.D.Va.2002) (ruling that apartment owner was negligent per se for having balcony, guardrail lower than required by city building code); Heath v. La Mariana Apartments, 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664, 669-70 (2008) (violation of guardrail spacing requirement in ordinance would be negligence per se but for grandfather provision excusing landlord from obligation to upgrade railings to current code); c

2016The requirement is sufficiently specific to prescribe a standard of care the violation of which constitutes negligence per se. - See O’Neil v. Windshire Copeland Assocs., L.P., 197 F.Supp.2d 507, 510 (E.D.Va.2002) (ruling that apartment owner was negligent per se for having balcony, guardrail lower than required by city building code); Heath v. La Mariana Apartments, 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664, 669-70 (2008) (violation of guardrail spacing requirement in ordinance would be negligence per se but for grandfather provision excusing landlord from obligation to upgrade railings to current code); c

2015The standard of care instruction was based on Burton v. Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority, 530 N.W.2d 696, 700 (Iowa 1995).