assumption of risk doctrine in California

2025(Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 308, fn. 4 ; id. at p. 309, fn. 5.) The “primary assumption of risk doctrine operates to limit the duty owed by the defendant.” (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482 , 499; see also Nalwa, at p. 1154 [under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a participant in an inherently dangerous activity is not owed a duty of ordinary care but only a duty not to increase the risks inherent in the activity itself].) In the context of a sport or activity, “[t]he primary assumption of risk doctrine rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigor

2025(Shannon, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 794 .) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding as follows: “We therefore conclude, under the facts of this case, that where a driver of a boat takes passengers out on his boat for a simple ride around a lake, the nature of the activity is not one that brings it within the Knight [v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 ] rule and therefore the doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply.” (Id. at p. 801, fn. omitted.) This was more than a “simple ride around the lake.” As the trial court noted, in the boating context application of assumption of the risk de

2025“The primary assumption of risk doctrine rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigorous participation in or sponsorship of recreational activities by imposing a tort duty to eliminate or reduce the risks of harm inherent in those activities.” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1156 .) Where the doctrine applies to a recreational activity, operators, instructors and participants in the activity owe other participants the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.

2025(Ibid.) Secondary assumption 19. of risk is where “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.” (Ibid.) “Primary assumption of risk, when applicable, completely bars the plaintiff’s recovery. [Citation.] The doctrine of secondary assumption of risk, by contrast, ‘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.’ ” (Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1063

2024In coparticipant cases, negligence is simply inapplicable; a defendant can be liable only if they “intentionally injure[ ] another player or engage[ ] in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.” (Id. at p. 320.) The same standard applies to an instructor defendant in “cases in which an instructor’s alleged liability rests primarily on a claim that he or she challenged the player to perform beyond his or her capacity or failed to provide adequate instruction or supervision before directing or permitting a student to perform

2024As first explained in Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296 , and subsequently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court, “sports participants have a limited duty of care to their coparticipants, breached only if they intentionally injure them or ‘engage[ ] in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.’ [Citation.] This application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine recognizes that by choosing to participate, individuals assume that level of risk inherent in the sport.” (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 486 , italics omitted (Shin), qu

2022Imposing a duty to mitigate those inherent dangers could alter the nature of the activity or inhibit vigorous participation.’ [Citation.] The primary assumption of risk doctrine, a rule of limited duty, developed to avoid such a chilling effect. [Citations.]” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1154 (Nalwa).) subds. (a), (b), & (d)(3); Calhoon v. Lewis (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 108, 113-115 (Calhoon).) We need not address the issue in light of our disposition of this appeal. 7 “Primary assumption of the risk arises when, as a matter of law and policy, a defendant owes no duty to pro

2020Code, § 1714, subd. (a)), when the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies, “operators, instructors and participants in the activity owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.” (Nalwa, supra, 7 55 Cal.4th at p. 1154 .) “The primary assumption of risk doctrine rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigorous participation in or sponsorship of recreational activities by imposing a tort duty to eliminate or reduce the risks 6 “Secondary assumption of risk,” in contrast, “arises when

2023The Firefighter’s Rule and Section 1714.9, Subdivision (a)(1) The firefighter’s rule is “an example of the proper application of the doctrine of assumption of risk.” (Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries (1994) 8 Cal.4th 532, 538 .) That doctrine applies “when it is appropriate to find that the defendant owes no duty of care.” (Ibid.) Thus, in “its most classic form, the firefighter’s rule” provides that “a person who negligently has started a fire” is not “liable for an injury sustained by a firefighter who is summoned to fight the fire.” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1122 .) This is b

2019Applying primary assumption of risk depends on " 'the nature of the activity 17 and the relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff.' " (Neighbarger, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 545 , italics added.) Applying the primary assumption of risk doctrine is error "when the defendant is a third party who has not secured the services of the plaintiff or otherwise entered into any relationship with the plaintiff." (Ibid.) Defendants also rely on a portion of the Supreme Court's Kinsman opinion that states: "[T]he principles enunciated in Privette suggest that the landowner would not be liable when the co

2017The primary assumption of risk doctrine is limited to those steps or safety measures that would have a deleterious effect on recreational activities that are, by nature, inherently dangerous. ( Record v. Reason , supra , 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 484-485, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 ; Nalwa , supra , 55 Cal.4th at p. 1162 , 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 290 P.3d 1158 ["The primary assumption of risk doctrine helps ensure that the threat of litigation and liability does not cause such recreational activities to be abandoned or fundamentally altered in an effort to eliminate or minimize inherent risks of injury"].)

2017Again, her inexperience and expectations are not relevant to primary assumption of risk. ( Knight, supra , 3 Cal.4th at p. 316 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 .) "[A] defendant's liability must be based on 'the nature of the sport itself' rather than 'the particular plaintiff's subjective knowledge and expectations ....' [Citation.] If not, 'there would be drastic disparities in the manner in which the law would treat defendants who engaged in precisely the same conduct, based on the often unknown, subjective expectations of the particular plaintiff who happened to be injured by the defendan

2020For this point, Weber cites Moser v. Ratinoff (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1211 , which considered whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied to injuries suffered during an organized 9 bicycle race on public roads.

2020(See Moser v. Ratinoff (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1221 [“organized, long-distance, group bicycle ride qualifies as a ‘sport’ for purposes of the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine”].) 4 3An amicus brief filed by the Consumer Attorneys of California also so argues. 4 The County refers to Plaintiff’s cycling activity as “high-speed cycling.” Although Plaintiff may have been cycling at a high speed when she encountered the pothole while coming down a hill, the County fails to provide support—from the record or case law—that traveling at high speeds was an integral part of th

2017(Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308 (Knight);8 Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1154 (Nalwa) [primary assumption of the risk supported defense summary judgment].) In Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296 , the Supreme Court considered the application of the assumption of risk doctrine in light of the court's adoption of comparative fault principles in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 .

2015(Rancho Viejo v. Tres Amigos Viejos, supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 558 .) II In Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 ] (Knight), the Supreme Court considered the proper application of the assumption of risk doctrine in light of its adoption of comparative fault principles in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.2d 1226 ].

2017The court distinguished between primary assumption of risk-i.e., "those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is 'no duty' on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk"-and secondary assumption of risk-i.e., "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." 9 ( Knight , at p. 308, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 .) When applicable, primary assumption of risk "operate[s] as a com

2017The court distinguished between primary assumption of risk-i.e., "those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is 'no duty' on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk"-and secondary assumption of risk-i.e., "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." 9 ( Knight , at p. 308, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 .) When applicable, primary assumption of risk "operate[s] as a com

2025(Ibid.) Secondary assumption 19. of risk is where “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.” (Ibid.) “Primary assumption of risk, when applicable, completely bars the plaintiff’s recovery. [Citation.] The doctrine of secondary assumption of risk, by contrast, ‘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.’ ” (Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1063

2024Respondent’s similar conduct, it follows, was not reckless or outside the range of the ordinary activity in surfing. “‘By eliminating liability for unintended accidents, the doctrine [of primary assumption of the risk] ensures that the fervor of athletic competition will not be chilled by the constant threat of litigation from every misstep, sharp turn and sudden stop.’ [Citation].” ( Cheong, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp.1071-1072.) No trier of fact could reasonably find that respondent’s conduct fell outside of the protection of the primary assumption of risk doctrine.

2025(Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 308, fn. 4 ; id. at p. 309, fn. 5.) The “primary assumption of risk doctrine operates to limit the duty owed by the defendant.” (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482 , 499; see also Nalwa, at p. 1154 [under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a participant in an inherently dangerous activity is not owed a duty of ordinary care but only a duty not to increase the risks inherent in the activity itself].) In the context of a sport or activity, “[t]he primary assumption of risk doctrine rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigor

2024As first explained in Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296 , and subsequently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court, “sports participants have a limited duty of care to their coparticipants, breached only if they intentionally injure them or ‘engage[ ] in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.’ [Citation.] This application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine recognizes that by choosing to participate, individuals assume that level of risk inherent in the sport.” (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 486 , italics omitted (Shin), qu

2023(Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 500 (Shin).) Judges applying the primary assumption of risk doctrine in cases regarding a recreational context may consider their own “common experience with the recreational activity involved” and “may also consult case law, other published materials, and documentary evidence introduced by the parties on a motion for summary judgment.” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1158 .) Expert opinions may also be considered “ ‘for purposes of weighing whether the inherent risks of the activity were increased by the defendant’s conduct.’ ” (Kahn v. E

2023Liability in [the latter] cases is adjudicated under the rules of comparative negligence.” (Gregory v. Cott (2014) 59 Cal.4th 996, 1001 ; see Shin, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 492 [the secondary assumption of risk doctrine relates to the allocation of damages, not to the question of duty].) “[P]articipation in an active sport is governed by primary assumption of risk, and a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in the sport.” (Staten, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1632 .) “When the risks are inherent, the defendant does not have a ‘duty to protect the plaintiff

2006The traditional version of the assumption of risk doctrine required proof that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted a specific known and appreciated risk. ( Prescott v. Ralph's Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 , 265 P.2d 904 , citing Rest., Torts, § 893.) The doctrine depended on the actual subjective knowledge of the given plaintiff ( Shahinian v. McCormick (1963) 59 Cal.2d 554, 567 , 30 Cal.Rptr. 521 , 381 P.2d 377 ) and, where the elements were met, was an absolute defense to liability for injuries arising from the known risk ( Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 725, 731

2006The traditional version of the assumption of risk doctrine required proof that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted a specific known and appreciated risk. ( Prescott v. Ralph's Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 , 265 P.2d 904 , citing Rest., Torts, § 893.) The doctrine depended on the actual subjective knowledge of the given plaintiff ( Shahinian v. McCormick (1963) 59 Cal.2d 554, 567 , 30 Cal.Rptr. 521 , 381 P.2d 377 ) and, where the elements were met, was an absolute defense to liability for injuries arising from the known risk ( Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 725, 731

1992(See Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra, 60 Cal.2d 266, 271-275 ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d 158,161-162 .) Consequently, as the dissenting opinion acknowledges, were its implied consent theory to govern application of the assumption of risk doctrine in the sports setting, the basic liability of a defendant who engages in a sport would depend on variable factors that the defendant frequently would have no way of ascertaining (for example, the particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge and expectations), rather than on the nature of the sport itself.

1992(See Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra, 60 Cal.2d 266, 271-275 ; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 .) Consequently, as the dissenting opinion acknowledges, were its implied consent theory to govern application of the assumption of risk doctrine in the sports setting, the basic liability of a defendant who engages in a sport would depend on variable factors that the defendant frequently would have no way of ascertaining (for example, the particular plaintiff's subjective knowledge and expectations), rather than on *313 the nature of the sport itself.

2014The court 5 "distinguished between (1) primary assumption of risk—'those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is "no duty" on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk'—and (2) secondary assumption of risk—'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.' [Citation.] Primary assumption of risk, when applicable, completely bars the plaintiff's recovery. [Citation.] The doctrine

2014The court 5 "distinguished between (1) primary assumption of risk—'those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is "no duty" on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk'—and (2) secondary assumption of risk—'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.' [Citation.] Primary assumption of risk, when applicable, completely bars the plaintiff's recovery. [Citation.] The doctrine

2023Liability in [the latter] cases is adjudicated under the rules of comparative negligence.” (Gregory v. Cott (2014) 59 Cal.4th 996, 1001 ; see Shin, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 492 [the secondary assumption of risk doctrine relates to the allocation of damages, not to the question of duty].) “[P]articipation in an active sport is governed by primary assumption of risk, and a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in the sport.” (Staten, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1632 .) “When the risks are inherent, the defendant does not have a ‘duty to protect the plaintiff

2020Code, § 1714, subd. (a)), when the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies, “operators, instructors and participants in the activity owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.” (Nalwa, supra, 7 55 Cal.4th at p. 1154 .) “The primary assumption of risk doctrine rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigorous participation in or sponsorship of recreational activities by imposing a tort duty to eliminate or reduce the risks 6 “Secondary assumption of risk,” in contrast, “arises when

2015The court “distinguished between (1) primary assumption of risk — ‘those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is “no duty” on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk’ — and (2) secondary assumption of risk— ‘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.’ [Citation.] Primary assumption of risk, when applicable, completely bars the plaintiff’s recovery. [Citation.] The doctri

2015The court “distinguished between (1) primary assumption of risk — ‘those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is “no duty” on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk’ — and (2) secondary assumption of risk— ‘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.’ [Citation.] Primary assumption of risk, when applicable, completely bars the plaintiff’s recovery. [Citation.] The doctri

2022Imposing a duty to mitigate those inherent dangers could alter the nature of the activity or inhibit vigorous participation.’ [Citation.] The primary assumption of risk doctrine, a rule of limited duty, developed to avoid such a chilling effect. [Citations.]” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1154 (Nalwa).) subds. (a), (b), & (d)(3); Calhoon v. Lewis (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 108, 113-115 (Calhoon).) We need not address the issue in light of our disposition of this appeal. 7 “Primary assumption of the risk arises when, as a matter of law and policy, a defendant owes no duty to pro

2022Imposing a duty to mitigate those inherent dangers could alter the nature of the activity or inhibit vigorous participation.’ [Citation.] The primary assumption of risk doctrine, a rule of limited duty, developed to avoid such a chilling effect. [Citations.]” (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, 1154 (Nalwa).) subds. (a), (b), & (d)(3); Calhoon v. Lewis (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 108, 113-115 (Calhoon).) We need not address the issue in light of our disposition of this appeal. 7 “Primary assumption of the risk arises when, as a matter of law and policy, a defendant owes no duty to pro

2013Although the Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the application of primary assumption of risk when the defendant’s negligence is based on the violation of a statute, Courts of Appeal have held that statutory provisions do not abrogate this defense unless the Legislature “has explicitly and unambiguously manifested a clear intent to do so. [Citations.]” (Peart, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 79 ; Whelihan, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1575 ; see also Moser, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1226 [facts showed that the bicyclist defendant violated provisions of the Vehicle Code while particip

2013Although the Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the application of primary assumption of risk when the defendant’s negligence is based on the violation of a statute, Courts of Appeal have held that statutory provisions do not abrogate this defense unless the Legislature “has explicitly and unambiguously manifested a clear intent to do so. [Citations.]” (Peart, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 79 ; Whelihan, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1575 ; see also Moser, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1226 [facts showed that the bicyclist defendant violated provisions of the Vehicle Code while particip

2023The Firefighter’s Rule and Section 1714.9, Subdivision (a)(1) The firefighter’s rule is “an example of the proper application of the doctrine of assumption of risk.” (Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries (1994) 8 Cal.4th 532, 538 .) That doctrine applies “when it is appropriate to find that the defendant owes no duty of care.” (Ibid.) Thus, in “its most classic form, the firefighter’s rule” provides that “a person who negligently has started a fire” is not “liable for an injury sustained by a firefighter who is summoned to fight the fire.” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1122 .) This is b

2020Defendant also points to Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112 as an example of the primary assumption of risk doctrine applied to dogs, but the 7 case is readily distinguishable.

1988The defense of assumption of risk, on the other hand, will negative liability regardless of the fact that plaintiff may have acted with due care. [Citation.] It is available when there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk and such acceptance, whether express or implied, has been made with knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” *103 (Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ]; Grey v. Fibreboard Paper Products Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 240, 243-244 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 545 , 418 P.2d 153 ].) In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.

1988The defense of assumption of risk, on the other hand, will negative liability regardless of the fact that plaintiff may have acted with due care. [Citation.] It is available when there has been a voluntary acceptance of a risk and such acceptance, whether express or implied, has been made with knowledge and appreciation of the risk.” *103 (Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [ 265 P.2d 904 ]; Grey v. Fibreboard Paper Products Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 240, 243-244 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 545 , 418 P.2d 153 ].) In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 858 , 532 P.

2022The primary assumption of risk doctrine balances these competing concerns by absolving operators of activities with inherent risks from an obligation to protect their customers from those risks. [¶] What the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not do, however, is absolve operators of any obligation to protect the safety of their customers. ( Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 317- 318.) As a general rule, where an operator can take a measure that would increase safety and minimize the risks of the activity without also altering the nature of the activity, the operator is required to do so.”

2017If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had sued the golfer who had hit the errant ball, the action would have been barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. ( Id. at pp. 133-134, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 249 .) Nearly a decade after Morgan , the same court held a race organizer had a duty to minimize the risks of dehydration and hyponatremia 5 -risks inherent to marathons-by "providing adequate water and electrolyte fluids along the 26-mile course" because "[s]uch steps are reasonable and do not alter the nature of the sport [of marathon running]." ( Saffro v. Elite Racing, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App

2022The primary assumption of risk doctrine balances these competing concerns by absolving operators of activities with inherent risks from an obligation to protect their customers from those risks. [¶] What the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not do, however, is absolve operators of any obligation to protect the safety of their customers. ( Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 317- 318.) As a general rule, where an operator can take a measure that would increase safety and minimize the risks of the activity without also altering the nature of the activity, the operator is required to do so.”

2017If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had sued the golfer who had hit the errant ball, the action would have been barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. ( Id. at pp. 133-134, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 249 .) Nearly a decade after Morgan , the same court held a race organizer had a duty to minimize the risks of dehydration and hyponatremia 5 -risks inherent to marathons-by "providing adequate water and electrolyte fluids along the 26-mile course" because "[s]uch steps are reasonable and do not alter the nature of the sport [of marathon running]." ( Saffro v. Elite Racing, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App

2015Standard of Review “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and decide independently whether the facts not subject to triable dispute warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law.” (Luna v. Vela, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 107 .) “Determining whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies is a legal question to be decided by the court.” (Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650, 656 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 ] (Beninati).) II.

2015Standard of Review “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo and decide independently whether the facts not subject to triable dispute warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law.” (Luna v. Vela, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 107 .) “Determining whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies is a legal question to be decided by the court.” (Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650, 656 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 ] (Beninati).) II.

2025(Shannon, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 794 .) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding as follows: “We therefore conclude, under the facts of this case, that where a driver of a boat takes passengers out on his boat for a simple ride around a lake, the nature of the activity is not one that brings it within the Knight [v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 ] rule and therefore the doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply.” (Id. at p. 801, fn. omitted.) This was more than a “simple ride around the lake.” As the trial court noted, in the boating context application of assumption of the risk de

2012(Kindrich v. Long Beach Yacht Club (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1258, 1262 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 824 ] [passenger who broke leg jumping from boat to dock was not engaged in an active sport]; Shannon v. Rhodes (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 792, 800 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 217 ] [boat ride on lake not a “ ‘sport’ within. any understanding of the word”]; Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 328 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 ] [“recreational dancing . . . not a sport within the ambit of Knight”].) We agree with the dissenting justice below, and the court in Beninati , that the primary assumption of ris

2018Primary Assumption of the Risk In Knight , supra , 3 Cal.4th 296 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 , the Supreme Court considered the continued applicability of the assumption of the risk doctrine in light of the court's prior adoption of comparative fault principles. ( Id. at pp. 299-300, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 .) Specifically, our high court distinguished between two different types of assumption of the risk: primary assumption of the risk-"those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is 'no duty' on *700 the part of the defendant t

2017Nor can these factors be used to redefine the ordinary range of activity and the concomitant risks inherent in the sport and thus enlarge the potential liability of coparticipants." ( Record , supra , 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 483-484, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 .) The court in Record also discounted the contention that the primary assumption of risk doctrine did not apply because the boat driver had control over the tube rider's speed and direction. ( Record, supra , 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 485 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 .) The court noted that the *518 boat driver was a coparticipant in tubing because each chose

2017The primary assumption of risk doctrine is limited to those steps or safety measures that would have a deleterious effect on recreational activities that are, by nature, inherently dangerous. ( Record v. Reason , supra , 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 484-485, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 ; Nalwa , supra , 55 Cal.4th at p. 1162 , 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 290 P.3d 1158 ["The primary assumption of risk doctrine helps ensure that the threat of litigation and liability does not cause such recreational activities to be abandoned or fundamentally altered in an effort to eliminate or minimize inherent risks of injury"].)

2017The primary assumption of risk doctrine is limited to those steps or safety measures that would have a deleterious effect on recreational activities that are, by nature, inherently dangerous. ( Record v. Reason , supra , 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 484-485, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547 ; Nalwa , supra , 55 Cal.4th at p. 1162 , 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 290 P.3d 1158 ["The primary assumption of risk doctrine helps ensure that the threat of litigation and liability does not cause such recreational activities to be abandoned or fundamentally altered in an effort to eliminate or minimize inherent risks of injury"].)

2022The primary assumption of risk doctrine balances these competing concerns by absolving operators of activities with inherent risks from an obligation to protect their customers from those risks. [¶] What the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not do, however, is absolve operators of any obligation to protect the safety of their customers. ( Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 317- 318.) As a general rule, where an operator can take a measure that would increase safety and minimize the risks of the activity without also altering the nature of the activity, the operator is required to do so.”

2017If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had sued the golfer who had hit the errant ball, the action would have been barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. ( Id. at pp. 133-134, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 249 .) Nearly a decade after Morgan , the same court held a race organizer had a duty to minimize the risks of dehydration and hyponatremia 5 -risks inherent to marathons-by "providing adequate water and electrolyte fluids along the 26-mile course" because "[s]uch steps are reasonable and do not alter the nature of the sport [of marathon running]." ( Saffro v. Elite Racing, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App

2006Code, § 1714, subd. (a).) A limitation to this general rule is the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk” that recognizes “in certain situations the nature of the activity at issue is such that the defendant does not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff to act with due care.” (Bushnell v. Japanese-American Religious & Cultural Center (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 525, 529 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 ].) To determine whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to a sports participant, the court must decide whether the injury suffered arises from an “ ‘inherent risk’ ” in the sport, and whether i

2006Code, § 1714, subd. (a).) A limitation to this general rule is the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk” that recognizes “in certain situations the nature of the activity at issue is such that the defendant does not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff to act with due care.” (Bushnell v. Japanese-American Religious & Cultural Center (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 525, 529 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 ].) To determine whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to a sports participant, the court must decide whether the injury suffered arises from an “ ‘inherent risk’ ” in the sport, and whether i