Avila v. Citrus Community College District

Supreme Court of California · 2006 · Torts

TortsSports injuriesGovernmental immunityDuty of careAssumption of riskGovernment Code 831.7hazardous recreational activitypublic entity immunity

Facts

Avila, a Rio Hondo Community College baseball player, was batting in a preseason road game against Citrus Community College when a Citrus pitcher hit him in the head after a Citrus batter had been hit in the prior half-inning. Avila alleged the pitch was retaliatory and intentional, or at least negligent, and that he felt dizzy and in pain but initially remained in the game before leaving the field. He sued the District for failing to supervise and control the pitcher, failing to provide umpires or other supervisory personnel, failing to provide medical care, failing to provide adequate equipment, and conducting an allegedly illegal preseason game. Only the claims against the District were before the court.

Issue

Does Government Code section 831.7 immunize a community college district from liability for injuries suffered by a student-athlete during a supervised intercollegiate baseball game? If not, did the District owe Avila a duty that was breached by hosting the game, failing to control the pitcher, failing to provide umpires, or failing to provide medical care?

Rule

Government Code section 831.7, enacted as a premises-liability measure aimed at voluntary unsupervised recreational use of public land, does not immunize public educational entities from liability for injuries sustained during school-sponsored and supervised sports because such activities are not 'recreational' within the statute. In interscholastic and intercollegiate competition, the host school owes home and visiting players a duty at least not to increase the risks inherent in the sport, but it has no duty to eliminate or decrease those inherent risks. Under primary assumption of the risk, injuries arising from inherent risks of baseball, including being hit by a pitch at the plate, even if intentionally thrown as a beanball, do not support negligence liability based on a failure to prevent that conduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Valley Community College, a public college in Sacramento, hosted a supervised intercollegiate softball game against Sierra Basin College. During the game, Lena Ortiz, a visiting player, fractured her wrist sliding into home and sued the host college district for negligent supervision. The district argues Government Code section 831.7 bars the claim because softball is a hazardous recreational activity on public property.

How should a court rule on the immunity defense?

Explanation. The majority held section 831.7 was aimed at voluntary, unsupervised recreational use of public land and does not immunize public educational entities for injuries arising from supervised, school-sponsored intercollegiate sports. The immunity question turns on the nature and context of the activity, not merely whether the sport is hazardous or takes place on public property. (Derived from Avila v. Citrus Community College District (n.d.).)