Knight v. Jewett

Supreme Court of California · 1992 · Torts

TortsAssumption of riskComparative faultSports injuriesassumption of riskprimary assumption of risksecondary assumption of riskcomparative fault

Facts

At a Super Bowl party, plaintiff and defendant joined an informal mixed-gender touch football game on an adjoining dirt lot. A few minutes into the game, defendant ran into plaintiff, and plaintiff told him not to play so rough or she would stop playing; she said he appeared to acknowledge her statement. On the next play, defendant collided with plaintiff and stepped on her hand, severely injuring her little finger, which was later amputated after unsuccessful surgeries. Plaintiff claimed defendant's conduct was reckless, while defendant characterized the contact as accidental during the course of play.

Issue

After Li adopted comparative fault, when does assumption of risk remain a complete bar to recovery, and what duty does one participant in an active sport owe another participant? Specifically, was defendant's conduct in an informal touch football game sufficient to breach a legal duty to plaintiff?

Rule

In primary assumption of risk cases, where the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to it mean the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk that caused the injury, the doctrine remains a complete bar to recovery. In secondary assumption of risk cases, where the defendant does owe a duty but the plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk created by the defendant's breach, the doctrine is merged into comparative fault. In active sports, a coparticipant breaches a legal duty to another participant only by intentionally injuring the other player or by engaging in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.

🔒

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.

During a weekend road race in Portland, Lena Ortiz entered a charity 10K organized by Riverbend Events. A race volunteer negligently parked a supply cart halfway across the marked course, and Lena, seeing it ahead, tried to squeeze by and fell over it, breaking her wrist.

If Lena sues Riverbend Events for negligence, which is the best characterization of her decision to keep running past the visible cart?

Explanation. The majority distinguishes primary from secondary assumption of risk by duty, not by whether the plaintiff reasonably or knowingly faced danger. Primary assumption of risk applies only where, because of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to it, the defendant owes no duty to protect against the particular risk. Here, the organizer owed a duty not to increase the risks of the event by negligently leaving equipment on the course. Because a duty exists and the plaintiff knowingly encountered a risk created by the defendant's breach, the issue is secondary assumption of risk and is merged into comparative fault, not a complete bar.