No. 20-3582 ___________________________

The Estate of Willys H. Fritz; Daniel W. Fritz, (on behalf of Leanne G. Fritz, decedent’s surviving widow; Daniel W. Fritz, decedent’s surviving adult son, and Susan G. Lueder, decedent’s surviving adult daughter)

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Bryson Henningar; City of West Union, Iowa

Defendants - Appellees ____________

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

Submitted: September 23, 2021 Filed: December 8, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ STRAS, Circuit Judge.

An emergency gave way to tragedy when Bryson Henningar’s police cruiser crashed into Willys Fritz’s truck. We must determine whether a jury should decide whether Henningar drove recklessly that day, or whether, as the district court1 concluded, he was entitled to summary judgment. We affirm.

I.

Before the accident, Henningar spoke to the manager of a nearby apartment complex, who reported a “fight in progress” between two tenants. After the call ended, Henningar left his house, activated his emergency lights, and headed down a two-lane Iowa highway toward the complex. Just moments later, with other vehicles already pulled over to the side of the road, he accelerated from 47 to 60 miles per hour as he crossed a four-way intersection.

On the other side of the intersection, just 270 feet away, was Fritz’s truck, which was idling at a stop sign. As Henningar’s police cruiser approached, the truck pulled out into the highway and tried to cross. The result was a violent broadside collision that led to Fritz’s death.

Fritz’s estate sued Henningar and the city of West Union in state court on several theories, including recklessness, see Iowa Code § 321.231, and a violation of Fritz’s civil rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the case was removed, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

II.

We review the decision to grant summary judgment de novo. See McCuen v. Polk Cnty., Iowa, 893 F.2d 172, 173 (8th Cir. 1990). “Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in [the] light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Bharadwaj v. Mid Dakota Clinic, 954 F.3d 1130, 1134 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

A.

In Iowa, special rules apply to the operators of emergency vehicles. See Iowa Code § 321.231. While responding to “emergency call[s],” they can “[p]roceed past a red [light] or stop sign[] . . . after slowing down” and can “[e]xceed the maximum speed limits” if it “does not endanger life or property.” Id. § 321.231(1), (3)(a)–(b). Certain traffic laws are relaxed, in other words, when a police officer like Henningar is responding to an “emergency.” Id. § 321.231(1).

This so-called “privilege,” however, has its limits. For one thing, traffic laws are relaxed only when an “audible” or “visual signaling device” is used, such as flashing lights or a siren. Id. § 321.231(4). Even then, Iowa law does not “relieve the driver . . . from the duty to drive . . . with due regard for the safety of” others. Id. § 321.231(5). And perhap