A secondary assumption of the risk comes into play when the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care but the plaintiff knowingly encounters the risk posed by the defendant's breach of duty. Cases involving secondary assumptions about the risk are incorporated into the comparative negligence framework, where damages are reduced proportionately based on the plaintiff's degree of fault. Therefore, under California law, plaintiffs can still recover damages after their own negligence is taken into account, even if it exceeds that of the defendant, as long as their conduct was not intentional.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is primary assumption of risk in California?
Primary assumption of risk is a California legal doctrine that commonly applies to sports and certain recreational activities. When the doctrine applies, a defendant generally has no duty to protect a participant from risks that are inherent in the activity. However, liability may still arise in certain circumstances, such as when a participant intentionally causes an injury or engages in conduct so reckless that it falls entirely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.
What is the difference between primary and secondary assumption of risk?
Primary assumption of risk generally concerns whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to protect against a particular risk inherent in the activity. If no such duty exists, the plaintiff may be barred from recovering for an injury caused by that inherent risk.
Secondary assumption of risk applies when the defendant owes and breaches a duty of care, but the plaintiff knowingly encounters the resulting risk. In California, these situations are generally addressed under comparative fault principles, meaning the plaintiff's recovery may be reduced according to their share of responsibility.
Does assumption of risk apply to all sports injuries in California?
No. The fact that an injury occurred during a sport or recreational activity does not automatically prevent an injured person from pursuing a claim. Courts consider the nature of the activity, the inherent risks involved, the defendant's role, and the conduct that caused the injury.
Can a participant be liable for injuring another player during a sport?
Yes, under certain circumstances. A participant generally is not liable merely for careless or negligent conduct that falls within the ordinary range of activity involved in the sport. However, liability may arise if the participant intentionally injures another person or acts so recklessly that the conduct is entirely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.
What does “inherent risk” mean in a sport or recreational activity?
An inherent risk is a risk that is considered a normal or integral part of participating in a particular sport or recreational activity. Whether a risk is inherent depends on the nature of the specific activity and the circumstances surrounding it.
When is conduct considered outside the ordinary activity of a sport?
Conduct may fall outside the ordinary activity of a sport when it increases the risks to participants beyond those inherent in the activity. Courts may also consider whether prohibiting the conduct would significantly alter or discourage participation in the sport. Mere carelessness, accidents, or ordinary negligence generally are not enough when primary assumption of risk applies to a coparticipant.
Can I recover compensation if primary assumption of risk applies?
It depends on what caused the injury and the defendant's role. Primary assumption of risk can bar recovery for injuries resulting from risks inherent in a sport or recreational activity. However, a claim may still be possible when the defendant intentionally causes an injury, engages in sufficiently reckless conduct, or otherwise increases the risks beyond those inherent in the activity where California law recognizes a duty not to do so.
What must a plaintiff prove under CACI No. 470?
In a claim involving a coparticipant in a sport or other recreational activity, CACI No. 470 generally requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant intentionally injured the plaintiff or acted so recklessly that the conduct was entirely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport. The plaintiff must also establish harm and that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing that harm.
How does comparative negligence affect secondary assumption of risk in California?
Secondary assumption of risk is generally incorporated into California's comparative fault system. If a plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk created by the defendant's breach of duty and is also found responsible for the resulting injury, the plaintiff's damages may be reduced according to the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
How did Knight v. Jewett affect assumption of risk law in California?
The California Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Knight v. Jewett established the modern distinction between primary and secondary assumption of risk. The decision focuses primary assumption of risk on the nature of the defendant's legal duty in light of the sport or activity and treats secondary assumption of risk through California's comparative fault framework.
Injured During a Sport or Recreational Activity in California?
Assumption of risk can make sports and recreational injury claims complicated, but it does not automatically mean you are unable to pursue compensation. If another person's intentional or reckless conduct contributed to your injuries, or if someone increased the risks beyond those inherent in the activity, you may have legal options.
At Fassonaki Law Firm, P.C., we can evaluate the circumstances of your injury, determine how California's assumption of risk laws may apply, and help you understand your options for pursuing a personal injury claim.
Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case.
