from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K.
appeals an adverse grant of summary judgment in this civil
suit for negligence and tortious infliction of emotional
A. Olson and Christine E. Branstad of Branstad Law, P.L.L.C.,
Des Moines, for appellant.
C. Palmer and Thomas M. Boes of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor
& Fairgrave P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
Harrison worked as a confidential informant for the Mid-Iowa
Narcotics Enforcement Task Force (MINE Task Force). During
the course of an investigation, Harrison was sexually
assaulted by the target of the investigation in the
target's home. She brought this action against the Ankeny
Police Department, a participating agency in the MINE Task
Force, and an individual officer of the Ankeny Police
Department. She claims the defendants acted negligently in
supervising the investigation and their actions constituted
tortious infliction of emotional distress. The district court
granted summary judgment to the defendants on the following
grounds: (1) Harrison's claims were barred by statutory
immunities; (2) the defendants did not owe Harrison a duty
due to the public duty doctrine; (3) Harrison's
assailant's conduct was unforeseeable as a matter of law;
(4) Harrison's claim was barred by the assumption of the
risk doctrine; and (5) Harrison's claim for tortious
interference failed as a matter of law.
review the district court's grant of summary judgment for
correction of errors at law. Boelman v. Grinnell Mut.
Reins. Co., 826 N.W.2d 494, 500 (Iowa 2013). A district
court properly grants summary judgment when there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 501.
An issue of fact is material if "the dispute is over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit, given the
applicable law." Weddum v. Davenport Cmty. Sch.
Dist., 750 N.W.2d 114, 117 (Iowa 2008). "An issue
of fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is such that a
reasonable finder of fact could return a verdict or decision
for the nonmoving party." Huck v. Wyeth, Inc.,
850 N.W.2d 353, 362 (Iowa 2014). "We can resolve a
matter on summary judgment if the record reveals a conflict
concerning only the legal consequences of undisputed
facts." Boelman, 826 N.W.2d at 501. The burden
is on the moving party to show it is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Sallee v. Stewart, 827 N.W.2d 128,
133 (Iowa 2013).
if facts are undisputed, summary judgment is not proper if
reasonable minds could draw from them different inferences
and reach different conclusions." Walker Shoe Store,
Inc. v. Howard's Hobby Shop, 327 N.W.2d 725, 728
(Iowa 1982). "The party resisting the motion for summary
judgment should be afforded every legitimate inference that
can reasonably be deduced from the evidence." Rock
v. Warhank, 757 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 2008). We view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Clinkscales v. Nelson Sec., Inc., 697 N.W.2d 836,
841 (Iowa 2005). However, the resisting party, rather than
resting upon the pleadings, "must set forth specific
facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for
trial." Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Indus.,
L.L.C., 753 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2008).
first claim of error is the district court impermissibly
weighed the evidence and resolved disputed issues of fact in
resolving the motion for summary judgment. It is well
established that "a court deciding a motion for summary
judgment must not weigh the evidence, but rather simply
inquire whether a reasonable jury faced with the evidence
presented could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party." Clinkscales, 697 N.W.2d at 841.
Harrison identifies several fact disputes the district court
purportedly impermissibly resolved. We need not decide
whether the district court impermissibly resolved the
identified disputes in deciding the motion for summary
judgment, however, because the purported disputed issues of
fact are not material to the resolution of this case. See
Weddum, 750 N.W.2d at 117 (defining
Code chapter 670 establishes the parameters of a
municipality's liability for the negligent acts or
omissions of its officers and employees." Kershner
v. City of Burlington, 618 N.W.2d 340, 342-43 (Iowa
2000). A city is subject to liability unless one of the
exemptions listed in section 670.4 (2014) applies. See
id. Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j) provides immunity for
[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an officer or
employee of the municipality, whether by issuance of permit,
inspection, investigation, or otherwise, and whether the
statute, ordinance, or regulation is valid, if the damage was
caused by a third party, event, or property not under the
supervision or control of the municipality, unless the act or