(Des Moines) – The Iowa Supreme Court, Wednesday (today), issued a decision in the case of a man who suffered injuries during an Oct. 2016 zip line incident in Pottawattamie County and had sued two entities in connection with the accident. The Supreme Court reversed a Council Bluffs District Court Summary judgment with regard to Mt. Crescent Ski Area owners Korby and Samantha Fleisher, and in light of that determination, said they to not need to address plaintiff Thomas Lukken’s other arguments concerning claims against the owners in his appeal. The High Court remanded the case for further proceedings. So, in essence, with regard to the appeal, the Court “Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part and Remanded.”

Thomas Lukken was at the resort when he stepped-off an elevated platform and sped down a zip-line. He was injured because an employee failed to reset the zip line’s braking system after the previous rider exited. By the time the employee realized his mistake, Lukken slammed into a wooden pole at the base of the zip line, and fractured his neck. He sued the zip line’s original designer and its owner.

A Council Bluffs District Court dismissed the claims against the manufacturer, based on the fact the braking system that failed to stop Lukken had been completely replaced by a different supplier before the accident. The District Court also dismissed the claim against the owner (Mt. Crescent Ski Area), based on a liability waiver Lukken signed before the ride.

In appealing the decision, Lukken said the district court erred in: (1) finding the installation of a new zip line braking system was a superseding cause of his injuries, relieving defendant Challenge Quest from liability; (2) finding Challenge Quest owed him no duty; (3) finding there were no issues of material fact as to his negligence claim against Challenge Quest; (4) failing to address an issue of gross negligence presented in the Mt. Crescent defendants’ motion for summary judgment; (5) finding the waiver of liability signed by plaintiff was not contrary to statutory purpose and public policy; and (6) failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.