Opinion ID: 2179800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Patricia's Arguments.

Text: Patricia urges that the district court erred in concluding that she was a spectator for purposes of the immunity conferred by section 673.2 and also erred in concluding that a person alert to the inherent risks of domesticated animal activities would have expected the activity that caused Patricia's injury. We agree with the district court that Patricia was a spectator as defined in the applicable statutory definition. That definition provides: Spectator means a person who is in the vicinity of a domesticated animal activity, but who is not a participant. Iowa Code 673.1(9). Patricia falls within this definition because a domesticated animal activity includes [r]iding or driving a domesticated animal (Iowa Code 673.1(3)(a)), and she was in the vicinity of that activity. She was not a participant as defined in Iowa Code section 673.1(8). [1] The district court did not err in concluding that Patricia was a spectator. We agree with Patricia's alternative claim that a factual issue exists as to whether her claim is excluded from the immunity conferred under section 673.2 by reason of subparagraph 5 thereof, which specifies that [t]his section shall not apply to the extent that the claim for damages, injury, or death is caused by any of the following: .... 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. In applying this statute, we are cognizant of the fact that the expectation to be determined is not that of the person injured but rather the expectation of a hypothetical reasonable person who is alert to inherent risks of domesticated animal activities. We also note that the inherent risk of a domesticated animal activity includes: [A] danger or condition which is an integral part of a domesticated animal activity, including, but not limited to, the following: a. The propensity of a domesticated animal to behave in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable to result in damages to property, or injury or death to a person. b. Risks generally associated with an activity which may include injuries caused by bucking, biting, stumbling, rearing, trampling, scratching, pecking, falling, kicking, or butting. c. The unpredictable reaction by a domesticated animal to unfamiliar conditions, including, but not limited to, a sudden movement; loud noise; and unfamiliar environment; or the introduction of unfamiliar persons, animals, or objects. Iowa Code § 673.1(7). These are very inclusive definitions, but in applying them, we are not convinced that a reasonable person alert to the defined risks would, as a matter of law, expect a runaway horse to be galloping down a pedestrian walkway perpendicular to another pedestrian walkway on which Patricia was walking with a group of people. [2] The issue presented is one of fact. The district court erred in granting summary judgment for the fair association. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court must be reversed. The case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. All justices concur except WIGGINS, J., who takes no part.