## Facts

- Mt. Crescent Ski Area operated a zip line with an elevated start platform and a landing platform, reaching high speeds over a long span.
- Mt. Crescent hired Challenge Quest, LLC to design and install the zip line, including an end-of-line braking system.
- Before the accident, Mt. Crescent replaced the original braking system with a different system from another supplier.
- Thomas Lukken rode the zip line; an employee allegedly failed to reset the braking system after a prior rider.
- Lukken collided with a wooden pole at the base of the zip line and fractured his neck.
- Lukken sued (1) the original designer/engineering entities and (2) the owner/operator defendants associated with Mt. Crescent.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the designer/engineering defendants because the failed braking system was not their system, and to the Mt. Crescent defendants based on a pre-ride liability waiver.

## Issues

1. Whether the zip line designer/engineering defendants could be liable in negligence or products liability when the braking system involved in the accident had been completely replaced after their work was completed.
2. Whether the participant’s signed waiver barred negligence claims against the owner/operator, including claims based on alleged employee negligence, under Iowa’s requirement of clear and unequivocal exculpatory language.
3. Whether the waiver was unenforceable on public-policy grounds.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the designer/engineering defendants.
- The court reversed summary judgment for the Mt. Crescent/owner-operator defendants.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on Lukken’s claims against the Mt. Crescent/owner-operator defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is not liable for an injury where the undisputed evidence shows the injury-causing component was a different system installed after the defendant completed its design/construction work, breaking causation as to that defendant’s product/design.
- Exculpatory clauses releasing a party from liability for its own future negligence are disfavored and strictly construed against the drafter.
- To be enforceable against negligence claims, a waiver must use clear and unequivocal language that would notify a casual reader that they are waiving claims for future negligent acts or omissions.
- General risk-assumption language, without a clear statement covering the drafter’s negligence, is insufficient to bar negligence claims.
- Recreational waivers are not categorically void as against public policy in Iowa; enforceability depends on the waiver’s clarity and scope.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court held that claims against the zip line’s designer failed because the braking system involved had been replaced, but the owner/operator could not rely on a broadly worded waiver that did not clearly and unequivocally release its own negligence, requiring further litigation on the negligence claim.


Lukken v. Fleischer, 962 N.W.2d 71 (Iowa 2021)