The Iowa Court of Appeals, in a decision authored by Judge Sharon Soorholtz Greer on Wednesday, addressed a dispute between neighbors Pudans and the Donahues concerning alleged damage to a swimming pool caused by fireworks.

According to Pudans, on the Fourth of July in 2017, fireworks set off from the Donahues' property damaged her pool liner. She testified that on July 4, 2017, before the fireworks, there were no black spots or damage to the liner. After witnessing the Donahues' fireworks later that day, she found black marks and damage to the pool liner the next day.

The Donahues argued that Pudans' claim that fireworks burned a hole in her pool liner could not survive summary judgment without expert testimony on causation. Their argument centered on the idea that since swimming pools are full of water, which typically extinguishes fire, expert proof was necessary to show that flaming fireworks debris could burn a pool liner submerged under approximately four feet of water. The Donahues presented an expert who doubted such burning was possible.

However, the court referenced Iowa Supreme Court precedent stating that expert testimony is not necessary to establish causation in all negligence cases. When the connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's harm falls within common knowledge and experience, expert testimony is not required. The court noted that causation is generally a question for the jury unless the facts are so clear and undisputed that only one conclusion can be drawn.

The court concluded that resolving whether fireworks could cause the pool liner damage was within the general understanding of a layperson and did not require specialized knowledge or training.

This ruling underscores the balance courts maintain between requiring expert testimony and relying on common sense in negligence claims.

Sources