Recent Developments in Iowa Law: Supreme Court Reaffirms Strong Statutory Immunity and High Bar for Recklessness

The Iowa Supreme Court recently delivered a strongly defense-favorable ruling for claims involving statutory immunity, affirming the dismissal of an $18.2 million personal injury lawsuit. The Court reaffirmed that the Iowa Domesticated Animal Activities Act (Iowa Code ch. 673) provides robust protection against liability and clarified that plaintiffs cannot easily pierce this immunity using the “recklessness” exception—even with a supporting expert affidavit.

For insurance carriers, this decision reinforces the value of statutory immunity as a tool to secure early summary judgment and avoid the costs of protracted litigation and potentially massive jury verdicts.

The plaintiff, Janey Shafer, suffered catastrophic injuries resulting in paralysis when she was run over by a horse-drawn sickle mower. The defendant, Frank Santana, had been mowing his pasture and briefly stopped to secure the mower’s heavy sickle bar. He asked Shafer to hold the horses’ lead rope. As he raised the bar, it suddenly fell to the ground, spooking the horses. Shafer was pulled down and run over by the mower’s steel wheel.

Shafer sued for negligence. Santana asserted statutory immunity under the Domesticated Animal Activities Act, which protects animal owners from liability for injuries resulting from the “inherent risks” of animal activities, including “driving” a domesticated animal.

To bypass this immunity, Shafer relied on the statute’s “recklessness” exception. She presented an expert who testified that Santana lacked the experience to safely operate a sickle mower, failed to secure a safety rod, used improperly trained horses, and absurdly asked a bystander to stand in front of the team. The expert concluded Santana’s conduct was “dangerous and unsafe.” The district court granted summary judgment for the defense, but the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, finding the expert’s opinion created a jury question on recklessness.

The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and affirmed the district court’s dismissal on two key grounds:

Shafer argued that because Santana had stopped the mower to adjust the blade, he was no longer engaged in the protected activity of “driving” the horses. The Court rejected this narrow interpretation. Recognizing “driving” as a term of art in the equine community, the Court held that the activity must be viewed in its entirety. Because the horses were still harnessed and Santana was merely securing the blade before continuing to the barn, the statutory immunity remained in full effect.

The Court drew a hard line on the recklessness exception, emphasizing that recklessness requires an “extreme departure” from ordinary care. It is not enough for a plaintiff to show a defendant made a bad call or lacked experience. To prove recklessness, a plaintiff must show the defendant intentionally performed an unreasonable act in disregard of a known or obvious risk, making harm highly probable.

Crucially, the Court held that the plaintiff’s expert report was insufficient to prove recklessness. While the expert identified risks (e.g., a rusted safety rod, inexperienced handling) and labeled the conduct “dangerous,” these factors merely pointed to garden-variety negligence. Because there was no evidence that Santana consciously understood the danger he placed Shafer in—or that the risk was so glaringly obvious that knowledge should be imputed—the statutory immunity could not be pierced.

This decision is a significant victory for the defense bar and insurance carriers managing agricultural, equine, and recreational liability claims. The Court explicitly recognized that the purpose of statutory immunity is to avoid costly litigation. By preventing plaintiffs from using hindsight-based expert opinions to inflate ordinary negligence into “recklessness,” the Court ensured that statutory immunity remains a formidable shield that can be resolved at the summary judgment stage.