Opinion ID: 2179800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Basis for the District Court's Ruling.

Text: The district court's ruling granting summary judgment was posited on the immunity created by the following statute: A person, including a domesticated animal professional, domesticated animal activity sponsor, the owner of the domesticated animal, or a person exhibiting the domesticated animal, is not liable for the damages, injury, or death suffered by a participant or spectator resulting from the inherent risks of a domesticated animal activity. This section shall not apply to the extent that the claim for damages, injury, or death is caused by any of the following: 1. An act committed intentionally, recklessly, or while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or other drug or a combination of such substances which causes damages, injury, or death. 2. The use of equipment or tack used in the domesticated animal activity which the defendant provided to a participant, if the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the equipment or tack was faulty or defective. 3. The failure to notify a participant of a dangerous latent condition on real property in which the defendant holds an interest, which is known or should have been known. The notice may be made by posting a clearly visible warning sign on the property. 4. A domesticated animal activity which occurs in a place designated or intended by an animal activity sponsor as a place for persons who are not participants to be present. 5. A domesticated animal activity which causes damages, injury, or death to a spectator who is in a place where a reasonable person who is alert to inherent risks of domesticated animal activities would not expect a domesticated animal activity to occur. Iowa Code § 673.2. In granting immunity to the fair association under this legislation, the district court rejected Patricia's contentions that (1) she was not a spectator as defined in the statute, and (2) a person who was alert to the inherent risks of domesticated animal activities would not have expected the activity that caused injury to her, thus triggering the exception to immunity provided by subparagraph 5 of the statute.