What is Primary Assumption of Risk?

“Primary assumption of risk arises where a plaintiff voluntarily participates in an activity or sport involving certain inherent risks; primary assumption of risk... bar[s] recovery because no duty of care is owed as to such risks.” Connelly v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 8, 11.

“Primary assumption of the risk is an objective test. It does not depend on a particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge or appreciation of the potential for risk.... Whether a duty exists ‘does not turn on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct, but rather on:

  1. the nature of the activity or sport in which the defendant is engaged and
  2. the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport.’

If a duty is found not to exist, primary assumption of risk applies, and a defendant is liable only if he intentionally injures the plaintiff or engages in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport or activity.” Saville v. Sierra College (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 857, 866, citing Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 313).

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies “where ‘conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an integral part of the sport [or activity] itself.’” Saville, supra, at 867. “Although the doctrine is often applied as between sports co-participants, it defines the duty owed as between persons engaged in any activity involving inherent risks. The doctrine applies to activity ‘done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical exertion as well as elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury’....” Jimenez v. Roseville City School Dist. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 594, 601 (citations omitted); see also Bertsch v. Mammoth Community Water Dist. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1208 (“These factors certainly apply to skateboarding”).

There is also a duty not to unreasonably increase the risks of injury to participants beyond those inherent in the activity. Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1162.

Useful Rulings on Primary Assumption of Risk

Rulings on Primary Assumption of Risk

1-25 of 363 results

DAMON KING VS GERALD STANLEY BRONSTRUP

Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 161 (“Primary assumption of the risk arises when, as a matter of law and policy, a defendant owes no duty to protect a plaintiff from particular harms”).) “The doctrine of ‘primaryassumption of risk developed as an exception to the general rule that all persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” (Childs v.

  • Hearing

LUCIDO, JAMES, ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL

Thus, under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, a defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff from particular risks that are inherent to, or an integral part of, the activity in question. Primary assumption of the risk applies most frequently in the context of injuries suffered while learning or participating in a sport or other recreational activity, or while observing those activities as a spectator. Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296; Quinn v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSE V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Primary Assumption of the Risk Applies to Recreational Road Bicycling Citing Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 64 (Childs) and Moser v. Ratinoff (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1211 (Moser), plaintiffs argue that the mere recreational riding of bicycles is not a sort of sport or activity to which primary assumption of the risk applies. Plaintiffs try to distinguish the facts of Moser.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ISABELLA RODRIGUEZ VS PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 161 (“Primary assumption of the risk arises when, as a matter of law and policy, a defendant owes no duty to protect a plaintiff from particular harms”).) “The doctrine of ‘primaryassumption of risk developed as an exception to the general rule that all persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” (Childs v.

  • Hearing

SILVIA HOOKS V. PATRICIA CROAD

The Activity of Grape-Stomping is Subject to the Primary Assumption of the Risk Doctrine Defendants argue the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies to the activity of grape-stomping. In support, they cite to Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650. In Beninati, the plaintiff suffered burns to his hands after tripping and falling into a bonfire during the Burning Man Festival.

  • Hearing

NICHOLAS ESPINOSA VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

Primary Assumption of the Risk Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, defendants do not owe a duty of care to a plaintiff in certain situations, depending on the nature of the activity. (McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 999.)

  • Hearing

RILEY VS. BIALY

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is an exception to the general rule. Primary assumption of risk “arises when, as a matter of law and policy, a defendant owes no duty to protect a plaintiff from particular harms.” (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 161.) Where primary assumption of the risk applies, it is a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003-1004.)

  • Hearing

WOLF VS. WEBER

Gouin (1992) 3 th Cal.4 339, the Supreme Court concluded that the ordinary duty of care to avoid injury to others is modified by the doctrine of “primary assumption of the risk.” Primary assumption of the risk negates duty and constitutes a complete bar to recovery. See Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 309- 310, 314-316. Whether primary assumption of the risk applies depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and the parties’ relationship to that activity. Id. at 313.

  • Hearing

JORDAN ALAN VS LA FITNESS ET AL

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Defendants’ first contention is that Plaintiff’s entire complaint against them is barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. a. Law Governing assumption of the risk Assumption of risk falls into two categories: primary and secondary. Primary assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff voluntarily engages in a sport or activity with inherent risks.

  • Hearing

JORDAN ALAN VS LA FITNESS ET AL

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Defendants’ first contention is that Plaintiff’s entire complaint against them is barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. a. Law Governing assumption of the risk Assumption of risk falls into two categories: primary and secondary. Primary assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff voluntarily engages in a sport or activity with inherent risks.

  • Hearing

GUNNER YOUNG, ET AL. V. AMY JACOBSON, ET AL. (CONSOLIDATED WITH MIKAYLA HOFFMAN V. CHRISTINA YOUNG, ET AL 16CVP0060.)

The burden shifts to Plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact to circumvent the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. Plaintiffs contend primary assumption of the risk is inapplicable where a co-participant “engage[s] in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.” (Knight, supra, at p. 320.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Hurst

  • County

    San Luis Obispo County, CA

ARMINEH TAVOOSIAN VS RAGING WATERS OF CALIFORNIA LTD ET AL

“The doctrine of ‘primaryassumption of risk developed as an exception to the general rule that all persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” (Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 64, 69 [citation omitted].) “Primary assumption of the risk is an objective test. It does not depend on a particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge or appreciation of the potential for risk. . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PSC 1501842

While her son was barred by the primary assumption of the risk from suing Young, Lloyd was not. Lloyd was not riding as a passenger in the boat for thrill, nor was there any required skill or challenge as a passenger that contained a potential risk of injury. Accordingly, being a passenger in a boat towing an inner tuber is a recreational rather than sporting activity and therefore the primary assumption of the risk doctrine has no application in this case.

  • Hearing

SO LAN MUI V. BTM FITNESS, LLC DBA ANASTASIA’S CLUB FIT

Therefore, the court finds that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s negligence claim. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Kevin E. McKenney

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

ALEXANDRA GRANDE VS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

“The doctrine of ‘primaryassumption of risk developed as an exception to the general rule that all persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” (Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 64, 69 [citation omitted].) “Primary assumption of the risk is an objective test. It does not depend on a particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge or appreciation of the potential for risk. . . .

  • Hearing

CARRIE TIVADOR VS EQUINOX HOLDINGS INC

The parties do not dispute that Pilates is a recreational activity that is subject to the primary assumption of the risk defense. The parties, however, do not cite legal authority that directly applies the primary assumption of the risk doctrine to the practice of Pilates.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NORMA J. PALOMO VS CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES, INC.

“The doctrine of ‘primaryassumption of risk developed as an exception to the general rule that all persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” (Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 64, 69 [citation omitted].) “Primary assumption of the risk is an objective test. It does not depend on a particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge or appreciation of the potential for risk. . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MACINNIS VS. KNOTT’S BERRY FARM, LLC

Primary Assumption of Risk: Defendant operated a well-known amusement park consisting of water-themed rides. Defendant contends that Plaintiff assumed the risk when she slipped and fell in a puddle of water while being evacuated from a ride. If Plaintiff was injured simply riding down the Lazy River ride, primary assumption of risk would bar liability. However, Defendant had engaged in an emergency evacuation procedure.

  • Hearing

LAIRMORE V. BLEEKER, ET AL.

Here, Defendants have met their prima facie burden in showing that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies. Defendants met their initial burden to show that primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies to Plaintiff jumping on their trampoline. (Defendants Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts Nos. 3-4; Lairmore Depo., at p. 62.) Plaintiff met his shifted burden to show a triable issue of material fact as to the cause of his injuries.

  • Hearing

YARON VS. PARK

Being hit by a golf club is not an inherent risk in the sport of golf, and defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. In the absence of primary assumption of the risk, a reasonably prudent person standard of care governs Defendant’s potential liability. (See Hemady, 143 Cal.App.4th at 579.) Whether there has been a breach of this duty is a question for the jury, not the court. (See Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1227.)

  • Hearing

MELIAN VS. FLUCHT

Cedar Fair, L.P., supra 55 Cal.4th at 1157-1158—primary assumption of risk not limited to traditional “sports” but includes “nonsport” recreational activities.)

  • Hearing

ESTEBAN MIGUEL SILVA JR VS WATTS LEARNING CENTER INC ET AL

Primary assumption of risk applies to touch football because it is an “active sport . . . .” (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 320.) A school’s general duty to supervise students does not “foreclose application of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine to those risks inherent in school sports.” (Lilley v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 939, 945–946.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

J P ET AL VS INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Primary Assumption of the Risk Analysis Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars Plaintiff’s claims is denied. The Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that Wilkins, as an adult teacher, and former coach, did not increase the risk inherent in the parties’ sport when the injury occurred.

  • Hearing

MICHELLE KIKUYE LAU IWAMOTO VS. STEVEN GEE

Whether the Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk Applies? The California Supreme Court, in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308, described primary assumption of the risk as encompassing situations when a defendant owes no duty of care to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk, regardless of whether the plaintiff acted reasonably or unreasonably in encountering the risk.

  • Hearing

RICHARD ECKERT VS SHEN CHEN

Therefore, unless plaintiff alleges facts from which “conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity in golf” could be inferred, primary assumption of risk precludes liability.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 15     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.