Thomas Lukken v. Century, Inc.
N/A (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory clause is unenforceable on public policy grounds to the extent it purports to negate liability for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, but it can be enforced for ordinary negligence. A design-build contractor is generally not liable for injuries caused by a subsequently replaced system or by an operator's error unrelated to their initial work and control.
Facts:
- In April 2014, Mt. Crescent Ski Area contracted with Challenge Quest, LLC, to design and install a zip line with a manual rope-pulley braking system.
- Challenge Quest completed the zip line in August 2014 and provided four days of technical training to Mt. Crescent's staff before turning over full control of the zip line.
- After the zip line opened, Mt. Crescent operators sometimes failed to sufficiently slow riders with the Challenge Quest braking system, leading to riders exceeding recommended speeds and some minor injuries.
- In July 2016, Mt. Crescent hired a different contractor, Sky Line, to completely replace Challenge Quest's original braking system with a magnetic-resistance "zipSTOP" braking system, without informing Challenge Quest.
- The new zipSTOP system automatically reset its position but required an operator to manually redeploy the brake block for each new rider.
- In October 2016, Thomas Lukken rode the zip line, and the Mt. Crescent employee on the landing platform forgot to redeploy the zipSTOP brake block after the previous rider.
- The operator's tardy redeployment failed to stop Lukken, causing him to crash into a wooden pole at the base of the zip line and suffer a fractured neck.
- Before riding, Lukken signed a release and waiver-of-liability agreement in favor of Mt. Crescent, which stated he released "any and all liability" for injuries "whether caused by the negligence of Mt Crescent Ski Area...or otherwise."
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Lukken filed a lawsuit against Mt. Crescent Ski Area (and related entities) and Challenge Quest, LLC (and related entities) in the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, pleading causes of action for negligence and strict liability, and requesting punitive damages.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Challenge Quest, holding that it breached no duty to Lukken and did not cause his injuries, primarily because its braking system had been replaced by a different supplier.
- The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of Mt. Crescent, holding that the liability waiver Lukken signed before riding was dispositive of his claims, reasoning it clearly waived future claims of negligence, including gross negligence.
- Lukken (appellant) appealed both of the district court’s summary judgment rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court, with Mt. Crescent and Challenge Quest as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a design-build contractor owe a duty of care or have liability for injuries caused by a zip line's braking system and operator error after its original system was completely replaced by a different contractor and it relinquished control? 2. Is a pre-injury liability waiver that releases claims for "any and all negligence" enforceable to preclude claims alleging willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, or only ordinary negligence, under Iowa public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - McDermott, J.
No, Challenge Quest does not owe a duty of care or have liability for Lukken's injuries because its original braking system had been completely replaced by a different supplier (Sky Line) before the incident, and it had no control over the new system or Mt. Crescent's employee who caused the accident. Yes, a pre-injury liability waiver releasing "any and all negligence" is enforceable for ordinary negligence claims, but it is unenforceable as a matter of public policy to the extent it purports to eliminate liability for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. Regarding Challenge Quest, the court emphasized that liability normally follows control, citing McCormick v. Nikkel & Assocs., Inc. Once Mt. Crescent decided to replace Challenge Quest’s braking system, any flaws in the original system ceased to be Challenge Quest’s responsibility. The new braking system, not Challenge Quest’s product, was in place during the accident, and Challenge Quest had no connection to the Mt. Crescent employee’s failure to reset the new brake, nor did it train employees on operating a system that did not exist at the time of its training. Therefore, Challenge Quest owed no duty of care associated with a system it neither designed, installed, nor controlled, and was relieved of liability. Regarding Mt. Crescent, the court reiterated that exculpatory clauses for ordinary negligence are generally enforceable in Iowa if they contain "clear and unequivocal language," citing Huber v. Hovey and Sweeney v. City of Bettendorf. However, the court clarified Iowa’s common law on "gross negligence," explaining it is not a distinct cause of action but a measure of conduct within ordinary negligence, citing Unertl v. Bezanson. The court distinguished this from statutory uses of "gross negligence" that might equate to "wanton neglect" or "recklessness." Consistent with Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 195(1) and a wide array of authority from other jurisdictions, the court held that public policy precludes enforcement of exculpatory clauses that attempt to limit liability for harm caused intentionally or recklessly (which includes willful or wanton conduct). Since Lukken alleged willful, wanton, and reckless conduct, the waiver could not bar those specific, more culpable claims.
Concurring - Appel, J.
Yes, Challenge Quest is not liable for Lukken's injuries, and Yes, the waiver for Mt. Crescent is unenforceable for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct but remains enforceable for ordinary negligence. Justice Appel concurred specially, agreeing with the majority's conclusion regarding Challenge Quest but disagreeing with the overbroad duty analysis. He argued that a contractor's duty does not invariably evaporate due to lack of control, citing Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. for Physical and Emotional Harm § 49 cmt. g, which suggests a contractor remains subject to a duty for risks created during its work. Instead, he asserted that the proper analysis for a contractor no longer in control concerns the fact-based questions of whether the risk was within the scope of liability and causation. In this case, causation was absent because Challenge Quest's braking system was entirely replaced by an independent vendor, and there was no linkage between Challenge Quest's training or design and the accident involving the new system. Justice Appel fully concurred with the majority's holding regarding the unenforceability of liability waivers for claims involving gross negligence, understanding it to refer to willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries for enforcing exculpatory clauses in Iowa, establishing a critical distinction: while waivers for ordinary negligence in recreational activities remain generally valid, public policy explicitly prohibits their enforcement for conduct deemed willful, wanton, or reckless. It also rectifies potential confusion regarding the term 'gross negligence' in Iowa law, affirming that common law 'gross negligence' is merely a degree of ordinary negligence, distinct from the higher culpability of willful, wanton, or reckless actions. For design-build contractors, the ruling provides clarity that their liability generally ceases once their specific product is entirely replaced by another, and they no longer maintain control over the system or operation leading to an injury.
