Breitenstein v. Peterson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 25-0004
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0004 Filed October 29, 2025

CASSANDRA BREITENSTEIN and DARIN BREITENSTEIN, Individually and as Next Friends of S.B., a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

LARRY PETERSON and SUEANN PETERSON, Defendants-Appellees,

and

BRAD PETERSON and JENNIFER PETERSON, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County,

Joshua P. Schier, Judge.

The plaintiffs appeal an adverse summary-judgment ruling concerning

Iowa’s recreational-land-use statute. AFFIRMED.

Grant C. Gangestad (argued) of Gourley, Rehkemper & Lindholm PLC,

West Des Moines, for appellants.

Brent Ruther (argued) of Aspelmeier, Fisch, Power, Engberg & Helling,

P.L.C., Burlington, for appellees.

Heard at oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

Iowa’s recreational-land-use statutes generally protect landowners from

liability when they open private land to others for recreational use. See generally

Iowa Code ch. 461C (2020). Here, we are asked to decide whether the

recreational-land-use statutes protect Larry and Sueann Peterson, who owned

land we assume was not open to the general public but nonetheless was where a

family friend’s daughter, S.B., operated and crashed an all-terrain vehicle (ATV),

resulting in the injuries underlying this lawsuit. Based on supreme court precedent

and the current language of the relevant provisions, we find the recreational-land-

use statutes protect the Petersons and affirm the district court.

The material facts are undisputed. Larry and Sueann own land in Lee

County that abuts land owned by their son and daughter-in-law, Brad and Jennifer

Peterson. In August 2020, Brad and Jennifer’s daughter was friends with twelve-

year-old S.B., and they were hanging out at Brad and Jennifer’s home. S.B. and

Brad and Jennifer’s daughter decided to ride an ATV across Larry and Sueann’s

land; Larry and Sueann were unaware of this and were not present at the time.1

While driving the ATV, S.B. lost control, crashed, and was injured. S.B.’s

parents (collectively the Breitensteins) filed suit on her behalf, making claims

against Larry and Sueann (for the duty owed as owners of the land) and Brad and

Jennifer (for negligent supervision). Larry and Sueann moved for summary

judgment, arguing that the recreational-land-use statutes shielded them from

1 We note the district court found also found it undisputed “Jennifer had left the

house to pick up pizza for the girls and they were unsupervised” while riding the ATV. But because this appeal only concerns summary-judgment as to Larry and Sueann—not Brad and Jennifer—we set this potentially disputed fact aside. 3

liability. And Brad and Jennifer moved for summary judgment, arguing that S.B.

had admitted fault and could not prove causation. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of Larry and Sueann based on Iowa Code

chapter 461C—the recreational-land-use statutes—and denied summary

judgment to Brad and Jennifer, leaving that claim for trial. S.B.’s parents filed a

notice of appeal following the partial-summary-judgment ruling, and the supreme

court transferred the case to us for resolution.

As a preliminary matter, we have concerns about jurisdiction and whether

the ruling at issue was interlocutory. The ruling granted summary judgment to

Larry and Sueann and dismissed the Breitensteins’ claim under chapter 461C, but

the claim for negligent supervision against Brad and Jennifer remained alive and

set for trial. “Ordinarily a summary judgment that is not dispositive of the entire

case is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal.” River Excursions, Inc. v. City

of Davenport, 359 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1984). For that reason, we conclude

S.B.’s parents did not appeal from a final judgment and treat their appellate papers

as an application for interlocutory appeal under Iowa Rule of Appellate

Procedure 6.104. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.151 (allowing us to consider papers as if

the proper form of review had been sought). In part because we discern no

prejudice to either party in doing so, we grant interlocutory review.

Before addressing the district court ruling here, some windup is needed

about the recreational-land-use statutes and their history. Chapter 461C was

enacted “to encourage private holders of land to make land and water areas

available to the public for a recreational purpose and for urban deer control by

limiting a holder’s liability toward persons entering onto the holder’s property for 4

such purposes.” Iowa Code § 461C.1. The statutes mandate that “[t]he provisions

of this chapter shall be construed liberally and broadly in favor of private holders

of land to accomplish the purposes of this chapter.” Id. With exceptions not

applicable here, the chapter provides that private landowners do not owe a duty of

care to others who use their land for recreational purposes. Id. § 461C.3(1).

“Recreational purpose” expressly includes operating ATVs. Id. § 461C.2.

In reexamining the recreational-land-use statute in 2013, our supreme court

wrote a bit of a treatise about its underlying policy and history in Sallee v. Stewart,

827 N.W.2d 128, 133–50 (Iowa 2013), superseded by statute, 2013 Iowa Acts

ch. 128. For our purposes, Sallee is most pertinent because the supreme court

declined to overrule Peterson v. Schwertley, 460 N.W.2d 469, 470–72

(Iowa 1990). Sallee, 827 N.W.2d at 149. In Peterson, the court held under a

previous version of the statute that recreational-land-use protections extended to

nonpublic lands, such that a trespasser could not recover against a landowner if

the trespasser was engaged in recreational use. 460 N.W.2d at 469–71. Looking

back on Peterson, the Sallee court opined: “[L]imiting Iowa’s recreational use

statute to lands generally open to the public is inconsistent with Peterson.” 827

N.W.2d at 149. And the court noted the importance of stare decisis to observe:

“Because this case can be resolved on other grounds, it is unnecessary to confront

the question of whether Peterson is good law.” Id. Bottom line, the Sallee court in

2013 declined to overrule Peterson—though the court perhaps expressed

reservations about its vitality.

At least partially in response to Sallee, the General Assembly amended the

recreational-land-use statute within months. See Michael J. Lunn, Note, Class 5

Dismissed: Forty-Nine Years Later, Recreational Use Statutes Finally Align with

Legislation’s Original Intent, 20 Drake J. Agric. L. 137, 152–53 (2015)

(summarizing the motivations underlying the legislative response). Among other

changes, the General Assembly added its preference that chapter 461C be

liberally construed in favor of landowners and that “land,” for purposes of the

chapter, “includes land that is not open to the general public.” See 2013 Iowa Acts

ch. 128, § 1.

As an intermediate appellate court, Peterson binds us—particularly given

the supreme court’s express notation in Sallee that it declined to overrule Peterson.

To the extent the intervening statutory changes provide any guidance, they weigh

clearly in favor of extending protection to landowners like Larry and Sueann, whose

land may not have been expressly opened to the general public but was

nonetheless subject to recreational use as described in the statutes.

With these principles in mind, we review the district court’s summary-

judgment ruling for correction of errors at law. E.g., Hagenow v. Am. Fam. Mut.

Ins. Co., 846 N.W.2d 373, 376 (Iowa 2014). For purposes of this appeal, we

bypass the disputed fact of whether Larry and Sueann did not actually open their

land to the public in any meaningful sense because that fact is immaterial.

Regardless, Peterson and the 2013 statutory amendments compel us to conclude

the protections of the recreational-land-use statutes bar the claim against Larry

and Sueann. We therefore affirm the district court’s summary-judgment ruling.

AFFIRMED.