No. 21-3096 ___________________________ Victor Barrios Maldonado, through his Guardian, Lidia Marina Mazariegos Ochoa; Lidia Marina Mazariegos Ochoa, individually as wife to Victor Barrios Maldonado

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

City of Sibley

Defendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Filed: January 26, 2023 ____________ Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ KOBES, Circuit Judge.

Victor Maldonado was electrocuted by a powerline owned and operated by the City of Sibley, Iowa. Maldonado and his wife Lidia Ochoa sued the City, in relevant part, for negligence and negligence per se. Ochoa also brought a loss of consortium claim. The district court granted summary judgment. We reverse the

-1- district court’s grant of summary judgment as to negligence and affirm as to negligence per se. The loss of consortium claim is also reinstated.

I.

Maldonado was working on the roof of a building in Sibley, Iowa, when a metal downspout he was installing is believed to have contacted a 7200-volt powerline suspended over the roof. Maldonado was electrocuted, causing him to fall off the building and suffer severe injuries.

The powerline was installed in the early 1970s and was part of a municipal utility owned and operated by the City of Sibley. At the time of the accident, the clearance between the rooftop and powerline was ten feet, five inches. The municipal utility is regulated by the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) and the Iowa Administrative Code, which has adopted the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). The NESC specifies minimum clearances between buildings and high voltage lines. Until 1977, the NESC only required a minimum clearance of 8 feet, but at the time of the accident, it required a minimum clearance of 12.5 feet. The NESC contains a “grandfather” clause which states that “[e]xisting installations that currently comply with prior editions of the Code . . . need not be modified to comply with these rules except as may be required for safety reasons by the administrative authority.” NESC § 013.B.2.

Maldonado and Ochoa sued the City for negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence. Ochoa also brought a loss of consortium claim. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on each claim. Specifically, the district court found that Maldonado’s claims were barred by the public-duty doctrine, and alternatively, that they failed as a matter of law. Maldonado appeals on the negligence and negligence per se claims.

-2- II.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017). Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “We view facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we make no determinations of credibility; nor do we weigh the evidence or draw inferences, as those functions belong to the jury.” Cottrell v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., S.I., 930 F.3d 969, 971 (8th Cir. 2019).

A.

We first examine whether Maldonado’s negligence per se and negligence claims survive summary judgment. Maldonado argues that