Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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 § 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 § 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, § 831.7 reads in relevant part:
Unlike primary assumption of the risk cases, secondary assumption of the risk cases are subsumed into the comparative fault scheme, and a plaintiffs assumption of the risk does not act as a bar to the action. ( Id. at p. 315.) In Moser v. Ratinoff , the appellate court found that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applied where a plaintiff was injured while participating in an organized, noncompetitive bicycle ride with others. ( Moser v. Ratinoff (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1211.)
JONAS V. MAS VS RENE RIZO
21STCV26601
Jan 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Moreover, the policy factors governing primary assumption of the risk in a general sports setting apply equally to students participating in extracurricular school sports. [Citations.]
ISABELLA RODRIGUEZ VS PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC703644
Sep 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” (Childs v.
DAMON KING VS GERALD STANLEY BRONSTRUP
BC713044
Oct 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Primary Assumption of the Risk In the recreation and sports context, primary assumption of risk is a defense that relieves a defendant of any duty to the plaintiff when the injury is due to a risk that is inherent in an activity in which the plaintiff chose to participate. (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308 (Knight); Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1154 (Nalwa).)
ROSE V. COUNTY OF FRESNO
17CECG02164
Nov 19, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, however, “does not grant unbridled legal immunity to all defendants.” (Campbell v. Derylo (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519].)
VEGA -V- FISHER ET AL PRINT
CIVSB2108551
Aug 04, 2023
San Bernardino County, CA
The State moves for summary judgment pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Although people generally have a duty to use due care to avoid injuring others, there are exceptions to that general rule, based on statute or public policy. Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 532, 537. One of those exceptions is the public policy expressed in the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. Id.
LUCIDO, JAMES, ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL
S-CV-0039073
Jul 03, 2018
Placer County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
SILVIA HOOKS V. PATRICIA CROAD
18CVP-0029
Jul 23, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Primary Assumption of the Risk “The common law doctrine of primary assumption of risk has been used a complete defense in personal injury lawsuits arising from any particular sports activity that is done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical exertion as well as elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury.
SO LAN MUI V. BTM FITNESS, LLC DBA ANASTASIA’S CLUB FIT
1-12-CV-226097
Feb 06, 2014
Santa Clara County, CA
Primary Assumption of the Risk USC next argues that Plaintiffs claim is barred under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. The primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars a plaintiffs 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.
HARRISON ROTH VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
19STCV33972
Mar 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Skateland also argues that an expert opinion does not create a triable issue of fact on a motion for summary judgment based on a primary assumption of the risk defense.
GERALDINE MYERS VS SKATELAND ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21STCV09851
Jan 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JORDAN ALAN VS LA FITNESS ET AL
BC588038
Jun 01, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JORDAN ALAN VS LA FITNESS ET AL
BC588038
Apr 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
ESTEBAN MIGUEL SILVA JR VS WATTS LEARNING CENTER INC ET AL
BC662428
May 22, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.)
NICHOLAS ESPINOSA VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL
BC593929
Mar 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
DUTY OF CARE – PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE Defendants contend the primary assumption of risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claim. In Nalwa , the California Supreme Court in addressing the applicability of the doctrine held in part that: Although persons generally owe a duty of due care not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to others (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a)), some activities—and, specifically, many sports—are inherently dangerous.
JOSHUA VALDEZ, ET AL. VS ARROYO HIGH SCHOOL , ET AL.
19STCV40035
Apr 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Analysis re: Primary Assumption of the Risk The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.) 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.)
IVAN ARRELLANO VS PB HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV24364
Oct 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
YARON VS. PARK
MSC18-01490
Jan 10, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
CARRIE TIVADOR VS EQUINOX HOLDINGS INC
BC641396
Aug 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that primary assumption of risk applied, but the court of appeal reversed.
RODRIGUES VS WOODSON
MSC18-01805
Dec 02, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
MICHELLE KIKUYE LAU IWAMOTO VS. STEVEN GEE
STK-CV-UPI-2014-0008603
Sep 13, 2018
San Joaquin County, CA
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.)
MELIAN VS. FLUCHT
30-2019-01095944
Sep 22, 2020
Orange County, CA
Primary Assumption of Risk Primary assumption of risk is a complete defense where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, a defendant owes no legal duty to protect a plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury. (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308-09.)
JOY AHMED VS EXCHANGE LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC577154
Feb 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
“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. . . . 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. . . .
ARMINEH TAVOOSIAN VS RAGING WATERS OF CALIFORNIA LTD ET AL
BC673092
Nov 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
“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. . . . 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. . . .
PRISCILLA MALKA VS BBC HOLDINGS, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV32877
Feb 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Primary Assumption of Risk 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.
PRISCILLA MALKA VS BBC HOLDINGS, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV32877
Feb 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
PSC 1501842
Jan 30, 2017
Riverside County, CA
The court noted that the plaintiff had evidence to support his claim of negligent supervision and that “this portion of his case is not barred by primary assumption of the risk.” Id., at 606.
HO JUNG JEONG VS GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE TRUE JESUS CHURCH I
BC591747
Feb 02, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
“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. . . . 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. . . .
ALEXANDRA GRANDE VS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
19STCV14114
Jul 31, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants argue that the use of service and equipment as a spa constitute a recreational activity within the meaning of Californias limited primary assumption of the risk doctrine and receiving a wet massage at a spa is a recreational activity. However, Defendants cite no authority which leads the Court to conclude that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to receiving a wet massage. Defendants only cite to Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
KYONG SOON KANG VS DK SOL, INC.
20STCV20258
Jan 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
ANTHONY WILLIAM PAREDES BARRERA, ET AL. VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.
21STCV02506
Jan 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Instead, they argue in the alternative that her claim is barred by the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk.” (Motion at p. 19.) The doctrine of primary assumption of risk generally applies to the field of sports, “where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury.” (Rostai v. Neste Enterprise (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 326, 331.)
NIGEL HUDSON VS JOHN ELY BACHSIAN ET AL
BC659102
Dec 03, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
“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. . . . 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. . . .
NORMA J. PALOMO VS CENTAUR HOLDINGS UNITED STATES, INC.
19STCV04207
Oct 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery. Secondary assumption of risk 'is merged into the comparative fault scheme, and the trier of fact, in apportioning the loss resulting from the injury, may consider the relative responsibility of the parties.' [Citation.]' (Id. at p. 69, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 823.)." Id., at 547. Here, the issue is secondary assumption of the risk. The doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply and does not bar plaintiffs' claims.
MACIAS VS. LA JOLLA COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL
37-2016-00004917-CU-PO-CTL
Mar 28, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
[T]he primary assumption of risk doctrine is not limited to activities classified as sports, but applies as well to other recreational activities involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants ... where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.
JONAS V. MAS VS RENE RIZO
21STCV26601
May 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
J P ET AL VS INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC658197
Sep 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Primary Assumption of the Risk Defendant next argues that primary assumption of the risk bars any complaint arising out of an injury based on a risk which is inherent to the voluntary participation in a sport or recreational activity. “Primary assumption of risk arises where a plaintiff voluntarily participates in an activity or sport involving certain inherent risks; primary assumption of risk does bar recovery because no duty of care is owed as to such risks.” (Connelly v.
NATALIE NASSER V. MARGARITA ADVENTURES, LLC
19CVP-0148
Jan 14, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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 granted. First, Defendant provides videotape footage of the incident itself, which shows Plaintiff skating with her sister, losing her balance, and falling backward; she then tries to stand up, loses her balance again, and falls backward onto her own outstretched hand.
TANYA CRUZ VS SKATELAND ENTERPRISES INC
BC715838
Jan 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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 granted. First, Defendant provides videotape footage of the incident itself, which shows Plaintiff skating with her sister, losing her balance, and falling backward; she then tries to stand up, loses her balance again, and falls backward onto her own outstretched hand.
TANYA CRUZ VS SKATELAND ENTERPRISES INC
BC715838
Jan 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
After reviewing cases in which courts have found a primary assumption of risk and finding none involving organized, noncompetitive, recreational bicycle riding, the court nonetheless found that “this sport” fell within the category of cases to which the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies. (Id. at 1221.)
MINICK V. CITY OF PETALUMA
SCV-251915
Sep 07, 2018
Sonoma County, CA
Determining whether primary assumption of the risk applies depends upon "the nature of the activity or sport in which the defendant is engaged and the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport." (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 309.) "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." (Saville v. Sierra College (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 857, 866.)
TUBINO VS. THE OFFICE BAR
37-2016-00011536-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 26, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
RICHARD ECKERT VS SHEN CHEN
1401621
Sep 20, 2012
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
App. 4th 975, 994 n. 22 (“The courts have applied primary assumption of risk principles to activities other than sporting or recreational endeavors, including injuries in the workplace.”). Defendants argue that skateboarding fits within the primary assumption of risk doctrine, citing to Calhoon v. Lewis (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4 th 108, 115 (“Skateboarding is a type of activity covered by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine.
KAILEY SNIDER VS ERIC BIRKEMEIER, ET AL.
19STCV35710
May 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants' principal argument is that Plaintiff's claims are barred because Plaintiff assumed the risk of her harm, arguing the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The Court rejects this argument. In Fazio v.
MARIE CORONEL VS. QUEST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
37-2016-00040028-CU-PO-CTL
May 17, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Jewett, supra 3 Cal. 4th 296, 318–319) Next, Defendants emphasize that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine also applies to recreational and physical activities beyond “sporting” events. (Rostai v. Neste Enterprises (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 326, 333—“primary assumption of the risk is not limited to sports but applies to any physical activity that involves an element of risk or danger as an integral part of the activity.”)
Mikayla Hoffman, et al. v Christina M. Young, et al 16CVP0060 (consolidated with Gunner Young, et al. v. Amy Jacobson, et al. 16CVP0230)
Jun 13, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Law Governing Primary 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. 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.
RAMON PEREDA VS. KEVIN HOWELL
19STCV23693
Sep 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
LAW RE: PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE "Although persons generally owe a duty of due care not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to others (Civ.Code, § 1714, subd. (a)), some activities-and, specifically, many sports-are inherently dangerous. Imposing a duty to mitigate those inherent dangers could alter the nature of the activity or inhibit vigorous participation.
GELLINTON VS OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RG19042083
Mar 30, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Express assumption of the risk doctrine and implied primary assumption of the risk doctrine operate similarly. Under primary assumption of the risk, defendant owes no legal duty to protect plaintiff from the particular risk of harm. This type of assumption of the risk, in which defendant's conduct did not breach a legal duty of care to plaintiff, is a complete defense. (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308-309; see Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 498.)
WESTERFELD V. ALISAL PROPERTIES
21CV02866
Feb 21, 2023
Santa Barbara County, CA
They argue that the first two causes of action against them for negligence and premises liability, are barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. The primary assumption of the risk doctrine is a defense to both the negligence and premises liability causes of action.
TAMARA ELMORE V. JEFF GREENE, ET AL.
18CV-0551
Dec 11, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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. . . . 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 plaintiffs subjective knowledge or appreciation of the potential for risk. . . .
AHMAD HEIDARI VS MARRIOTT INTERNATION INC.
21STCV01552
Feb 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk does not bar Plaintiff's action. The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is an exception to the general rule that people "have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others, and may be held liable if their careless conduct injures another person. (See Civ.Code, § 1714.)" (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 315, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696 (Knight).)
NATALIE JONES VS THE GATHERING PLACE CHURCH
37-2017-00014662-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 15, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
“[T]he physical activity of fitness training under the guidance of a personal trainer is one to which the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applies.” ( Rostai v. Neste Enterprises (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 326, 335.)
20STCV0591
Oct 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(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. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery. ( Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.
TIMOTHY VANGEL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV21901
May 31, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, plaintiffs assume risks inherent in a sport by participating, and defendants generally owe no duty to protect plaintiffs from such risks, but owe a duty not to increase the risks beyond those inherent in the sport. (Luna v. Vela (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 102, 107-110.) Gorcey cites to Moser v. Ratinoff (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1221, for the proposition that Gorcey did not owe a duty to Plaintiff because of the primary assumption of risk doctrine.
ANDREW SEPTIMUS VS JORY S GORCEY ET AL
BC681582
Jan 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Rather, they discuss the applicability of primary assumption of risk. (See CACI Nos. 471 and 472 regarding primary assumption of risk as to instructors and facilities owners, respectively.) “What the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not do, however, is absolve operators of any obligation to protect the safety of their customers.
GHIZZONI VS. PURPLE PEDAL
30-2018-01015594
Nov 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because falling is an inherent risk of running and thus the claim is barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. Defendants’ argument fails. Under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, a defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff who participates in a risky recreational activity from particular risks of harm that are inherent in the activity itself. (Knight v.
ETHAN HAMMOND VS LONG BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
18STCV03527
Aug 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery. (Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.
TIMOTHY VANGEL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV21901
Jul 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Nunnink (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 826, 838-839, states, “One exception to the general rule of due care frequently applied in cases involving sports is the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. [Citation.] The seminal case in the area is Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 313, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696 (Knight ). Knight involved an action by a participant in a touch football game who was injured by the defendant, another participant. [Citation.]
HIRSON V. DANA SMITH SHOW TEAM, INC.
30-2018-01004063
Jul 07, 2020
Orange County, CA
Defendant contends that these claims are barred due to primary assumption of the risk and express assumption of the risk. A. Primary Assumption of the Risk Under the doctrine of assumption of the risk, a defendant generally does not “have a duty to protect the plaintiff from the risks inherent in” a sport or to eliminate risk from the sport. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1004.)
ORNELAS VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC2002886
Sep 09, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Primary assumption of risk occurs when, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular inherent risk of harm in the activity that caused the injury. Primary assumption of risk operates as a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery.
JON EDMONSON, ET AL. VS TFI GROUP, ET AL.
19STCV10121
Jun 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.
MEY CHOUR VS KORLY YAN ET AL
BC633052
May 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Issue 4, 5 and 6: Primary Assumption of the Risk Issues 4, 5 and 6 raise the same undisputed facts as issues 1, 2, and 3. CACI Instruction 409 specifically addresses the liability of instructors, trainers, and coaches in the context of primary assumption of the risk and is directly relevant.
EVERNDEN V. DIOCESE OF MONTEREY PARISH & SCHOOL
15CV-0262
Jun 21, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Primary 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. 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.
MARK K AMELI VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ET AL
BC584770
May 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally, Defendant asserts Plaintiff's cause of action is precluded by application of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. "The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is applied to certain sports or sports-related recreational activities where 'conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an integral part of the sport itself' and their removal would alter the nature of the sport. [Citation.]" (Childs v.
BRADLEY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2021-00037216-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 16, 2024
San Diego County, CA
Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, application of the test varies slightly depending on whether the defendant is a co-participant versus an instructor: co-participants have a duty not to act recklessly outside the bounds of the sport; instructors have a duty not to increase the risks inherent in the activity. See Avila, supra, at 162.
KIM V. IL-DO TAEKWONDO
30-2016-00833638-CU-PA-CJC
Aug 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Defendants fail to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to Plaintiff's negligence claim Defendants contend that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff's negligence claim is barred by the doctrine of "primary assumption of risk."
2021-00552470
May 19, 2022
Ventura County, CA
DISCUSSION Under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, a defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff who participates in a risky recreational activity from particular risks of harm that are inherent in the activity itself. Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296, 316.
LUKE PATRUNO VS EQUINOX FITNESS PASADENA INC ET AL
BC713405
Oct 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
It cannot be determined from the Complaint that the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk necessarily bars the causes of action. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990; Rostai v. Neste Enterprises (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 326; Complaint ¶13.) Defendants are to file an Answer within 14 days notice of service of this order.
MACK V. PETRUCHIK
30-2016-00880429-CU-PO-CJC
Mar 07, 2017
Orange County, CA
Primary Assumption of Risk Oak Tree alternatively moves for summary judgment/summary adjudication on grounds of primary assumption of risk. As with the gross negligence claim, Oak Tree denies it owed any legal duty to Plaintiff in that Oak Tree undertook no duty to supervise the simulation, and an accidental shooting by a co-participant constitutes an inherent risk in gun range exercises.
ALEX SCHOENAUER VS CALIFORNIA GUN GIRLS, LLC., ET AL.
19STCV26262
Jul 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants contend the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars Plaintiff’s claims. In Opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk does not apply as she was not a spectator of the lacrosse game and even if it did, the FAC alleges that Defendants increased the inherent risks of the sporting activities The Reply reasserts many of the same arguments made in the moving papers. Analysis I.
COATS VS BALBOA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
CVRI2302803
Dec 11, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Defendants contend the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars Plaintiff’s claims. In Opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk does not apply as she was not a spectator of the lacrosse game and even if it did, the FAC alleges that Defendants increased the inherent risks of the sporting activities The Reply reasserts many of the same arguments made in the moving papers. Analysis I.
COATS VS BALBOA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
CVRI2302803
Dec 10, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Defendants contend the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars Plaintiff’s claims. In Opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk does not apply as she was not a spectator of the lacrosse game and even if it did, the FAC alleges that Defendants increased the inherent risks of the sporting activities The Reply reasserts many of the same arguments made in the moving papers. Analysis I.
COATS VS BALBOA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
CVRI2302803
Dec 09, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The instructor’s personal participation in the event causing the injury does not preclude the primary assumption of risk from applying. Bushnell v. Japanese- American Religious & Cultural Center (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 525, 531 [“The doctrine of primary assumption of risk can apply even if the defendant was in some manner in control of the situation and thus in a better position than the plaintiff to prevent the plaintiff’s injury”].
BRINDLE V. TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL.
FCS052075
Aug 19, 2020
Solano County, CA
“Primary assumption of risk occurs where a plaintiff voluntarily participates in a sporting event or activity involving certain inherent risks. For example, an errantly thrown ball in baseball or a carelessly extended elbow in basketball are considered inherent risks of those respective sports. Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery. [¶] Primary assumption of risk is merely another way of saying no duty of care is owed as to risks inherent in a given sport or activity.
XAVIER-YOUNG VS. SPARE TIME
MSC19-02712
Apr 16, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
The trial court ruled the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk barred liability because, as a matter of law, riding a scooter is a recreational activity, and falling is an inherent risk of the activity. The trial court was reversed.
BUFFIN V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2016-00002402-CU-PO-CTL
Apr 12, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Analysis re: Primary Assumption of the Risk The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.) 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.)
DIANA DIAZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENT AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM ELECT.LIZZET ROME VS GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
19STCV34477
Jul 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
¿¿“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 . . . . 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 . . . .
JARED KATZ VS EQUINOX THE RELATED COMPANIES L P
BC718812
Jul 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Only “primary assumption of the risk” acts as complete defense; cases of secondary assumption of the risk are merged into comparative fault, and the trier of fact, in apportioning loss resulting from the injury, may consider the parties’ relative responsibility. “Thus, primary assumption of the risk applies to the question of duty and secondary assumption of risk applies to the calculation of damages. (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 499).
ROCCO VS YOUNG LIFE
MCC1500376
Jan 11, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies is a question of law and “depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties' general relationship to the activity.” (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 313.) “The overriding consideration in the application of primary assumption of risk is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the implicated activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature.” (Ferrari v.
GAUDREAU, ET AL. V. CITY OF LA HABRA
30-2019-01064083
Aug 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Analysis Re: Primary Assumption of the Risk The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.) 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.)
TROY ANDREW SMITH VS PETER SHERAYKO, ET AL.
20STCV32404
Sep 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Primary Assumption of the 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.’(Citation.)” (West v. Sundown Little League of Stockton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 351, 357.)
ROBIN KING VS FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC ET AL
BC585765
Jan 13, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants also contend the Primary Assumption of Risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims. In Nalwa , the California Supreme Court in addressing the applicability of the Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk held in part that: Although persons generally owe a duty of due care not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to others (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a)), some activities—and, specifically, many sports—are inherently dangerous.
ETHAN PARK, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SUJUNG LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CAMPING CAR USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV18222
Feb 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Since the existence of the primary assumption of the risk is dependent upon the existence of a legal duty, and since duty is an issue of law to be decided by the court, the applicability of that defense is amenable to resolution by summary judgment. (Id) [Emphasis Added] Under the circumstances presented, this is not a baseball field that is held out to be a pristine, well-manicured field.
MILLER, MICHAEL VS. CITY OF GRIDLEY
21CV02975
Jan 04, 2023
Butte County, CA
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. . . . Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery.” Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal.
IAN COYNE VS JAMIL ALSAFAH
BC579724
May 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Under a primary assumption of risk analysis, the coaches had "a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." Although the District moving papers cite the Fortier decision, the District doesn't discuss the coaches' duty not to increase the risks inherent in the sport until the reply papers. The District has not met its burden under CCP §437c on the issue of primary assumption of the risk.
JOHN HERLICH VS. JASON SROUY
37-2016-00032867-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 04, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Under a primary assumption of risk analysis, the coaches had "a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." Although the District moving papers cite the Fortier decision, the District doesn't discuss the coaches' duty not to increase the risks inherent in the sport until the reply papers. The District has not met its burden under CCP §437c on the issue of primary assumption of the risk.
JOHN HERLICH VS. JASON SROUY
37-2016-00032867-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 22, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants also contend the Primary Assumption of Risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims. In Nalwa , the California Supreme Court in addressing the applicability of the Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk held in part that: Although persons generally owe a duty of due care not to cause an unreasonable risk of harm to others (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a)), some activities—and, specifically, many sports—are inherently dangerous.
ETHAN PARK, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SUJUNG LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CAMPING CAR USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV18222
Mar 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Sports, (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 1284, 1288. Defendant does not owe a duty to protect the Plaintiff from injury from a particular risk of harm inherent in an activity engaged in by Plaintiff. “Primary assumption of the risk” acts as a complete bar to Plaintiff’s complaint. Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 315-316. Whether primary assumption of the risk applies can be determined as a matter of law if the facts are not in dispute. Childs v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 115 Cal. App. 4th 64, 69.
ETHAN HERNANDEZ VS TARGET CORPORATION
BC670491
Jul 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk simply does not apply in this case. Moreover, to the extent the doctrine of secondary assumption of the risk applies, as stated previously, that doctrine has been merged into principles of comparative fault in California. (Cheong v. Antablin, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1067, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 946 P.2d 817.)
202100559596CUPO ALONSO VS. KROTONA
202100559596CUPO
Jan 03, 2024
Ventura County, CA
“When applicable, primary assumption of the risk operate[s] as a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery.” (Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 34 [citation and quotation marks omitted].) For example, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applied in Nalwa where the plaintiff alleged injuries from a collision of bumper cars, because low-speed collisions are inherent in a bumper car ride. (Nalwa, 55 Cal.4th at 1157.)
ISBELLA MCMILLER ET AL. VS CITY OF STOCKTON
STK-CV-UPI-2020-0000919
Sep 04, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
Thus, there is a triable issue as to whether primary assumption of risk bars Plaintiff’s claim under the facts in this case. Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication as to the defense of primary assumption of risk is denied. ISSUE THREE: PUNITIVE DAMAGES: As discussed above, the evidence submitted in the opposing papers raise a triable issue as to whether Defendant Allan acted with malice, i.e., whether he engaged in a conduct intended to cause injury to Plaintiff.
PACE VS. ALLAN
30-2016-00859259-CU-PO-CJC
Mar 06, 2018
Orange County, CA
Summary Judgment: As to summary judgment, Defendant asserts, Plaintiff’s (Enrico Galaviz) “. . . right to recovery for alleged injuries he sustained due to a fall during an exercise class is barred by California law pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.” (Motion; 1:12-13.) The court finds that Defendant has carried its initial burden of demonstrating that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s causes of action for premises liability and negligence.
GALAVIZ V. CROSSFIT INSANITY
30-2019-01056010
Oct 06, 2020
Orange County, CA
Primary Assumption of the Risk Doctrine “‘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.’(Citation.)” (West v. Sundown Little League of Stockton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 351, 357.)
LESLIE GONZALES VS YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF METR
BC602378
Feb 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Primary assumption of risk occurs where a plaintiff voluntarily participates in a sporting event or activity involving certain inherent risks. For example, an errantly thrown ball in baseball or a carelessly extended elbow in basketball are considered inherent risks of those respective sports…[citations.]…. Primary assumption of risk is merely another way of saying no duty of care is owed as to risks inherent in a given sport or activity.
WATSON V. SPEARS
15CECG00986
Dec 04, 2017
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Based on the foregoing, Ciclavia’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication on the grounds Plaintiffs’ 1 st and 3 rd causes of action are barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine [Issue No. 1] is denied. In light of the finding that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply to underlying event, Ciclavia’s motion for summary adjudication of Ko’s 4 th cause of action, on the grounds it is barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, is also denied.
CAROL UM, ET AL. VS CICLAVIA, ET AL.
18STCV03027
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In a sports setting, under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, the plaintiff is said to have assumed the particular risks inherent in a sport by choosing to participate and the defendant generally owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from those risks. (Luna v. Vela (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 102, 107 [emphasis added].)
LEILA AFSHARI VS CITY OF CALABASAS ET AL
BC690786
May 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In a sports setting, under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, the plaintiff is said to have assumed the particular risks inherent in a sport by choosing to participate and the defendant generally owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from those risks. (Luna v. Vela (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 102, 107 [emphasis added].)
LEILA AFSHARI VS CITY OF CALABASAS ET AL
BC690786
May 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
THERE IS AT LEAST A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE PRIMARY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE BARS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS Under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, a defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff who participates in a risky recreational activity from particular risks of harm that are inherent in the activity itself. Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296, 316.
RYAN S CASKEY VS LA FITNESS ET AL
BC699696
Dec 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Nor was she participating in a physical or recreational activity of the type where the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk has been applied. She simply walked into a horse trailer and attempted to stand next to the horse to take a photo with her phone. Therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk does not apply to plaintiff’s claims.
MECHELLE HAMMACK VS. ROWDY PARROTT
19CECG01429
Apr 13, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Moving Parties’ counsel discovered primary assumption of risk is a viable defense based on Ari Ahmed’s deposition testimony regarding the nature of the game and the circumstances that gave rise to Plaintiff NB’s injuries. (Ibid.) Plaintiff NB opposes the motion in arguing primary assumption of risk is only a viable defense against negligence and not intentional torts. Yet, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action is for negligence.
N B, ET AL. VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV06782
Jul 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
To summarize, 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. ( West v. Sundown Little League of Stockton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 351, 357 [cleaned up].) In Nunez v.
GRETCHEN SMITH VS BOON PROPERTIES, INC.
20STCV08741
Jul 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.