Herding is Included in Iowa’s Liability Shield for Domesticated Animal Activities

On October 30, 2024, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination that Iowa’s liability shield for domesticated animal activity is not an affirmative defense. Instead, it sets a standard of care against which to assess negligence for activities that qualify as domesticated animal activities. The court also found that herding ponies is a domesticated animal activity for purposes of the liability shield found in Iowa Code § 673.2.

Facts

The defendants owned two skittish ponies. In August 2020, plaintiff was enlisted to help catch the ponies. Sometime during the chase, the plaintiff’s ankle was caught in a rope that was around a bolting pony’s head. As a result, the plaintiff dislocated her foot and needed two surgeries to fully heal. She was unable to work until January 2021.

The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging they negligently maintained their premises in a condition that created unreasonable risk of injury and failed to warn her of it. The case centered on the applicability of the Iowa Code § 673.2, which creates a liability shield to animal owners and others for injuries, damages, or death caused by the animal’s activities.

The plaintiff stated in her petition that she was not engaged in a domesticated animal activity when she was trying to catch the ponies. At the time of the jury trial, she also argued the defendants shouldn’t be allowed to argue they were protected by § 673.2 because they never identified their use of the liability shield as an affirmative defense. Defendants argued that they did not need to plead § 673.2 as an affirmative defense. Instead, they argued that the statute established the appropriate standard of care for domesticated animal activities.

The district court agreed with the defendants and allowed a jury instruction on statutory immunity which stated, “liability for injuries caused by a risk inherent to domesticated animal activity is limited to injuries resulting from reckless acts or failure to notify participants of latent conditions.” The jury found the defendants were not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff appealed, arguing the district court erred when it determined the liability shield was not an affirmative defense. She also challenged the statutory immunity jury instruction.  

Opinion

The court affirmed that § 673.2 sets a standard of care; it is not an affirmative defense. When a domestic animal is involved in a personal injury lawsuit, the statute requires the plaintiff to prove that either: (1) they were not involved in a domesticated animal activity or (2) one of the liability exemption situations applies. The court further noted that this liability shield is analogous to the contact sports exception, where the plaintiff must prove the defendant breached their lower duty of care by acting recklessly.

The court then affirmed the plaintiff was engaged in a domesticated animal activity when she began to help catch the ponies. The statutory definition states that “driving” is a domesticated animal activity. The plaintiff argued “driving” requires the animal to pull a cart or buggy. The court found the definition for drive includes “directing the course of something,” and affirmed the district court’s determination that the common meaning of driving in this context includes herding animals. Trying to catch a pony is the same as herding the pony, the court found. Therefore, the statutory immunity jury instruction was applicable to the situation and properly before the jury.