This Tentative Ruling is made by Judge Stephen Kaus The Court SUSTAINS defendant Oakland Unified School District's ("Defendant") unopposed Demurrer to plaintiff Daunte Gellington's ("Plaintiff") Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
The allegations of the SAC still fall squarely under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, as articulated in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 and Fortier v. Los Rios Community College District (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 430. Therefore, Plaintiff in his SAC had to allege specific facts showing that Defendants increased the inherent risks of the sport by allowing conduct by participants "so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity" in the sport at issue. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1011; Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 162.) Plaintiff's newly alleged facts still do not allege more than mere recklessness by Defendant's employees.
IF ANY
Hearing Date
March 30, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
This Tentative Ruling is made by Judge Stephen Kaus The Court SUSTAINS defendant Oakland Unified School District's ("Defendant") unopposed Demurrer to plaintiff Daunte Gellington's ("Plaintiff") Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
The allegations of the SAC still fall squarely under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, as articulated in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 and Fortier v. Los Rios Community College District (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 430. Therefore, Plaintiff in his SAC had to allege specific facts showing that Defendants increased the inherent risks of the sport by allowing conduct by participants "so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity" in the sport at issue. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1011; Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 162.) Plaintiff's newly alleged facts still do not allege more than mere recklessness by Defendant's employees.
IF ANY