Moser v. Ratinoff

California Court of Appeal · 2003 · Torts

TortsPrimary assumption of riskSports injuriesNegligenceSummary judgmentprimary assumption of riskorganized bicycle rideinherent risk

Facts

Moser and Ratinoff participated in the Death Valley Double Century, a 200-mile noncompetitive bicycle ride on public highways with about 600 riders. Before the event, Moser signed a release in favor of the event holders, sponsors, and organizers acknowledging risks including injuries caused by other participants. During the ride, Ratinoff moved to her right while riding alongside Moser, collided with him once, and then seconds later collided with him again, causing him to crash and suffer injuries. Moser sued Ratinoff for negligence and argued that the collision was not an inherent risk and that Ratinoff's alleged Vehicle Code violations made primary assumption of risk unavailable.

Issue

Does the primary assumption of risk doctrine bar a negligence action between coparticipants in an organized, noncompetitive, long-distance group bicycle ride on public highways when one rider swerves into another? If so, do alleged statutory violations by the defendant rider displace that doctrine?

Rule

Primary assumption of risk applies when, because of the nature of the sport or activity and the parties' relationship to it, the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from risks inherent in the activity. An activity qualifies as a sport for this purpose when it is done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical exertion and elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury. Coparticipants remain liable for intentional or reckless conduct totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport, but not for mere negligence. A statutory violation does not abrogate primary assumption of risk unless the statute indicates legislative intent to eliminate that defense.

🔒

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.

Lena Ortiz and Caleb Dunn joined a 180-mile charity bicycle ride starting in Fresno, California, with about 500 riders on open public roads. The event was noncompetitive, but riders trained for it, wore helmets, and completed the course for enjoyment and physical challenge. During the ride, Caleb drifted sideways and bumped Lena, causing her to crash.

If Lena sues Caleb for ordinary negligence, which is the strongest argument for applying primary assumption of risk?

Explanation. Primary assumption of risk turns on the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to it. The majority treated an organized, noncompetitive, long-distance group bicycle ride as a sport because it is done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical exertion and elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury. The use of public roads, safety rules, or large attendance alone is not the doctrinal test.