This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D operates a skiing and sledding business in the winter months and offers other outdoor recreational activities, including zip lining, in warmer months. The zip line begins on a twenty-four-foot-high platform atop the ski hill. Harnessed riders travel down the zip line reaching speeds of up to forty miles per hour before landing on a lower thirty-three-foot-high landing platform at the bottom of the hill. The zip line extends 1576 feet from start to finish. D's operators in several instances failed to sufficiently slow riders using grip friction on the rope to control the brake block. Riders arrived at the landing platform at speeds in excess of six miles per hour, the maximum recommended by a trade association called the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT), which develops safety standards for zip line courses. Some of the riders collided with D employees engaged in stopping them. A handful of injuries resulted, the most serious apparently being an injured ankle. D consulted with a different contractor about a different braking system. The new contractor recommended a 'zipSTOP' braking system that uses a magnetic-resistance wheel to bring riders to a complete stop instead of ropes and pulleys. The brake block automatically moves back to the correct position on the zip line in preparation for the next rider, but an operator must manually redeploy it before it will move. P rode the zip line, but D's employee on the landing platform forgot to redeploy the brake block after the rider ahead of P finished. P crashed into a wooden pole at the base of the zip line and suffered a neck fracture. P had signed a release and waiver-of-liability agreement which affirmed that P was aware of how dangerous the activities were, including serious injury and death, both to 'myself' and to others. The release stated that P understood that there are many potential causes for property damage, serious injury, and death, including the negligence of D, its owners, agents, employees, volunteer staff, rescue personnel, and equipment, as well as my own negligence and the negligence of others. P released D, its owners, agents, employees, volunteer staff, rescue personnel, and equipment manufacturers and distributors, including negligent rescue operations, and the release was intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted by Iowa law for any and all acts of negligence. P sued D for gross negligence and recklessness. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of D based on the exculpatory agreement. The court held that the express language of waiving 'any and all negligence' waived all of P's negligence claims, including his claim for gross negligence. The district court declined to hold the waiver unenforceable based on public-policy grounds and held that the waiver wasn't preempted by statute. P appealed. P claims D's negligence went beyond ordinary negligence and into the realm of gross negligence. P claims that as a matter of public policy, Iowa courts should not enforce clauses that exculpate parties from grossly negligent conduct.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.