The primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars a plaintiff’s recovery for negligence when “it can be established that, because of the nature of the activity involved and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care.” (Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 532, 538; see also Avila v. 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 ‘primary’ assumption 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.... [p]rimary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” (Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 64, 69.)
“Assumption of risk falls into two categories: primary and secondary.” (Balthazor v. Little League Baseball, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 47, 49.) “Primary assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff voluntarily engages in a sport or activity with inherent risks.” (Id.) “It embodies those instances where there is a legal conclusion that there is no duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from that particular risk....” (Id. citing Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296, 308.) “Secondary assumption of risk embodies those instances in which the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff but the plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk of injury caused by the defendant's breach of that duty.” (Balthazor at 49.) “Secondary assumption of risk cases are merged into the comprehensive-comparative fault system, requiring that the trier of fact determine the relative responsibility of the parties in apportioning the loss.” (Id.)
“In the context of primary assumption of the risk, liability should attach only when the defendant has increased the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.” (Id.) “Courts look to the nature of the activity or sport at issue and the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport to determine if a defendant owes a duty to protect a plaintiff from the particular risk of harm.” (Balthazor at 50.)
“Cases in which a duty was found include where, for example, an instructor gave specific directions to the participant which increased the risk of harm inherent in the sport.” (Id.) “The rationale is that where the defendant has acted so as to increase the risk of harm inherent in a particular sport, he/she should not be able to thereafter rely on the primary assumption of risk doctrine.” (Id. at 51.)
Primary assumption of the risk means that the plaintiff has voluntarily participated in a sport that includes various inherent risks, and therefore, the defendant is relieved of his or her duty to use due care to avoid the plaintiff suffering an injury as a result of those inherent risks of the sport. (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 308-309, fns. 3-4, 315-316.) The question of whether a defendant should be relieved of his or her duty is a question of law and policy. (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 161.)
“A court must evaluate
(Id.)
“As a matter of policy, a duty should not be imposed where doing so "would require that an integral part of the sport be abandoned, or would discourage vigorous participation in sporting events.” (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1004.) “If the defendant is relieved of his or her duty of care, then the plaintiff's negligence cause of action is barred.” (Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1063, 1068.)
“Courts look to the nature of the activity or sport at issue and the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport to determine if a defendant owes a duty to protect a plaintiff from the particular risk of harm.” (Balthazor v. Little League Baseball, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 47, 50.) “Cases in which a duty was found include where, for example, an instructor gave specific directions to the participant which increased the risk of harm inherent in the sport.” (Id.) “The rationale is that where the defendant has acted so as to increase the risk of harm inherent in a particular sport, he/she should not be able to thereafter rely on the primary assumption of risk doctrine.” (Id. at 51.)
“In some cases the question whether the plaintiff was engaged in a ‘recreational’ activity may be a question of fact for the jury.” (Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 471, 475) “But where... the facts are undisputed, the question whether plaintiff was engaged in a ‘hazardous recreational activity’ is a question of law for the court.” (Acosta, Id. citing Yarber v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1519 noting ‘participation in adult basketball league was "hazardous recreational activity" as a matter of law’.) (”In the present case the issue of immunity under section 831.7 should never have gone to the jury because, as a matter of law, "hazardous recreational activities" do not include school-sponsored extracurricular athletic activities under the supervision of school personnel.” (Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 471, 476.))
In Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, the court discussed at length the issue of student sports participants injured during the activity and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.
The court considered the questions: “What of playing in a high school or intercollegiate baseball game, which falls somewhere between these extreme?” (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 154.) “Does it matter if one is a scholarship athlete, and thus receiving some form of reward for one's continued performance, or if one's participation in a sporting activity is compulsory because of state laws governing physical education instruction?” (Id.) “The text alone cannot answer these questions.” (Id.)
“In the absence of any indication of such a legislative intent, we will not read section 831.7 as immunizing public entities from potential liability arising out of their oversight of school-sponsored activities.” (Avila, supra 38 Cal.4th at 160.) Thus, we conclude that school sports in general, and organized intercollegiate games in particular, are not “recreational” within the meaning of the statute. (Id.)
As cited in Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 471, 475, Section 831.7 reads in relevant part:
(Id.)
Jan 21, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Jan 21, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Nov 13, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 09, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Apr 11, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
Jun 24, 2016
San Joaquin County, CA
Aug 25, 2016
San Joaquin County, CA
Jul 02, 2018
Placer County, CA
Dec 04, 2017
San Mateo County, CA
Sep 13, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
Nov 13, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 05, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 06, 2018
Placer County, CA
Jun 06, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
Sep 29, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
Sep 29, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
Dec 11, 2015
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Dec 11, 2015
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Dec 11, 2015
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Sep 07, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
Jun 08, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Sep 20, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
Apr 29, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Apr 29, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Nov 22, 2017
San Joaquin County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.