In California law primary assumption of the risk doctrine was first set forth in Knight v. Jewett (1992). The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is applicable to sports or sports-related recreational. Activities where the conduct or conditions that otherwise can be a consideration of danger are usually the essential part. Primary assumption of risk arises where a plaintiff willingly engages in a sport or activity involving certain inherent risks.
Primary assumption of risk usually absolves the defendant of a duty of care toward the plaintiff with regard to injury incurred in the course of a sporting or sports-related recreational activity covered by the doctrine. A person can be only guilty if he intentionally injures another one or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity in the sport.
When a person has an injury while playing sports or engaging in another recreational activity, he can seek financial compensation for the caused injuries against the responsible party through a California personal injury lawsuit.
According to CACI 470 if the plaintiff claims that he has an injury while participating in sport or other recreational activity, and the defendant is responsible for that harm, he must be able to prove all of the following elements to establish the claim.
Conduct is entirely outside the range of ordinary activity in case it:
A person can’t be responsible for injuries resulting from conduct that was merely careless, accidental, or negligent
Secondary assumption of the risk refers to cases when the defendant owes the plaintiff a legal duty to protect him from a particular injury or harm, but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter the risk imposed by the defendant’s breach of duty. Cases, which involve secondary assumption of the risk are comparative negligence, which is a legal standard dealing with conditions, where two parties to an action are partially at fault.
According to CACI 404 plaintiff’s damages aren’t recoverable to the extent his own negligence contributed to the caused injuries. This will be proportionately reduced to reflect the percentage of his fault. Thus, in California law, plaintiff can still recover damages after his percentage of fault has been deducted, even in case his degree of negligence was more that the defendant’s. Though, it is important to mention, that comparative negligence doctrine only applies to cases where the plaintiff’s conduct wasn’t intentional.
For any further legal assistance and or seeking attorney representation, contact KAASS LAW today!
Navigating the Process and Deadlines Under the FTCA When a federal employee or agency’s negligence injures someone, pursuing justice becomes…
Understanding a Motion to Dismiss and Seal a Criminal Record A motion to dismiss and seal a criminal record in…
The Future of Urban Mobility Takes Flight Los Angeles is on the edge of a transportation breakthrough as flying taxis…
Widespread Abuse in California Juvenile Facilities Over the last several years, disturbing accounts of sexual abuse, assault, and misconduct have…
In a landmark move, Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a new bill into law. This bill dramatically reshapes the relationship…
The homelessness epidemic is the most visible crisis facing California cities. Encampments line sidewalks and parks, creating complex social and…