UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court deadlocks on specifics required for liability waivers

by Rox Laird | October 23, 2024

When Dubuque police officer Katherine Avenarius accidentally shot herself in the leg while attending an Iowa Law Enforcement Academy firearms instructor school, she sued the academy claiming her injury was the result of an instructor’s advice on how to handle her firearm that contradicted how she had previously been trained. The State, which operates the academy, argued Avenarius signed a “clear and unequivocal” waiver and release of liability.

The Polk County District Court disagreed and denied the State’s motion for summary judgment, saying there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the firearm instructor negligently instructed Avenarius to place her finger on the trigger while unholstering her weapon. The State sought further review by the Iowa Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in a February 7 decision.

And that is the end of the story, at least for this case.

Although the Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals decision, Justice David May took no part in the case, and the remaining six justices were evenly divided. Justices Thomas Waterman, Edward Mansfield, and Christopher McDonald would have vacated the Court of Appeals decision and reversed the district court. Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justices Dana Oxley and Matthew McDermott would have affirmed the Court of Appeals and the district court.

As a result, the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed under Iowa Code section 602.4107, which says that when the Supreme Court is equally divided, “the judgment of the court below shall stand affirmed, but the decision of the supreme court is of no further force or authority.”

In its decision, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals – consisting of Senior Judge Thomas Bower and Judges Mary Tabor and Mary Chicchelly – said the release Avenarius signed uses “the broadest language possible” and does not contain a clear expression of her intent to release the State from liability for claims related to negligent acts of the training academy or its instructors.

The State argued in its application for further review that the Court of Appeals decision conflicts with Iowa Supreme Court precedent by demanding “pinpoint prediction” of an injury or cause of action. “The Court of Appeals opinion departs from this Court’s longstanding precedents that a waiver does not require specific language or a ‘magic word’ to release a party from negligence claims, so long as the intent to do so is clearly and unequivocally expressed.”

In seeking further review, the State urged the Supreme Court to clarify its interpretation of liability waivers, but that will have to wait for another case when seven members of the Court are participating.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25