Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00437/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00437-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The parties each submitted a statement of facts with their submissions in support of and in

opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court relies upon the facts from Defendants’

Alleged Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”), which are undisputed by Plaintiff and supported by the

cited evidence, and the facts from Plaintiff’s Disputed Material Facts (“DMF”), which are undisputed

by Defendants and supported by the cited evidence. 

- 1 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANA MARIA ANDIA, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

FULL SERVICE TRAVEL, a California

corporation, CELEBRITY CRUISES,

INC., a foreign corporation, and

ARNOTT’S LODGE AND HIKE

ADVENTURES, a Hawaiian business of

unknown structure,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by

Celebrity Cruises, Inc. and Arnott’s Lodge and Hike Adventures. (Doc. # 40). 

Background

Defendant Celebrity Cruises, Inc. (“Celebrity”) is engaged in the business of 

providing passenger cruises to various destinations.1

 UMF 1. Arnott’s Lodge and Hike

Adventures (“Arnott’s”) guides transport cruise ship passengers to Volcanoes National

Park (“the Park”), and provide knowledge about where the lava flow is each day. UMF 3. 

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

In order to view the active lava flow, individuals must hike over cooled lava. This terrain

is rugged and natural, consisting of uneven surfaces. Id. at 4; DMF 4. The Hawaii

Volcanoes National Park Rangers (“Rangers”) place reflective markers and cones on the

lava to be used by hikers as reference points. UMF 7. 

In November, 2005, Plaintiff Ana Maria Andia, M.D. was a passenger on Defendant

Celebrity Cruises, Inc.’s (“Celebrity”) passenger cruise ship. Plaintiff is an experienced

hiker. Andia Depo, 35: 23-25. On November 27, 2005, Plaintiff signed up to participate in

a shore expedition known as the HL 15, the Kilauea Lava Viewing Hike, guided by

Arnott’s. UMF 8. On November 27, 2005, there was total visibility for many miles in

every direction. Id. at 5. 

Prior to beginning the hike, Plaintiff read the description of the hike that states:

“This tour involves approximately two to six miles of hiking over very sharp and uneven

surfaces.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff also read, understood and executed the “Lava Hike

Participant, Release and Acknowledgment of Risk” (“Agreement”), which provides, in

relevant part:

I agree not to hold Arnott’s liable for any accident or injury beyond its control.

The hike to the Lava is conducted at a brisk pace and requires physically fit

participants in good health who can readily hike on varied surfaces and elevation

changes for extended periods. I, as a participant, acknowledge that I am taking

this activity of my own free will and that I will not hold Arnott’s responsible for

any injury incurred while . . . I am hiking on the paved or natural surfaces of the

National Park . . . . I understand by reading this waiver that Arnott’s guides will

provide only broad direction and safety guidelines and that I remain responsible

for the actual path hiked and whether I choose to take the risks with possibly still

hot Lava Flows.

Id. at 11. Plaintiff also received and read a document entitled “Arnotts Adventures proudly

presents: The Kilauea Lava Hike Adventure” (“Brochure”), which informed Plaintiff that

she may need to turn around and head back to the Rangers station alone, and that she did

not need a trail to return safely. Id. at 14. 

Prior to beginning the hike, Arnott’s informed Plaintiff that the lava flow had

changed and that the hike was going to be longer than anticipated for that day. Id. at 13. 

Arnott’s also informed all participants in the hike, including Plaintiff, that they had the

option of staying at the Rangers station and not going on the hike, and that there would be

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

four decision points during the hike at which hikers could turn around and head back to the

Rangers station. Id. at 13, 18. 

Prior to beginning the hike, Plaintiff understood that the marked trail was merely a

preferred route, and that the trail was not necessary to safely return to the Rangers station. 

UMF 15; Andia Depo, 63:1-15. Plaintiff also understood that guides would not stay with

her during the hike and that she might be returning to the Rangers station unaccompanied. 

UMF 15, 16; Andia Depo, 63: 1-15, 64:22-24. Plaintiff understood that the hike would be

difficult and strenuous. Andia Depo, 52: 17-19 

For the first 30 minutes of the hike, and through the first two decision points, the

hike proceeded on paved surfaces. UMF 20. During this period, Plaintiff recalls seeing

reflective tabs on the paved surface. Id. Plaintiff’s companion recalls seeing reflective tabs

stuck to the rocks for 10-15 minutes of the hike after leaving the paved road. Plaintiff does

not recall whether or not the reflective tabs were stuck to the rocks. Id. at 21. 

Approximately 45 minutes into the hike, and after approximately 15 minutes of walking on

unpaved terrain, Plaintiff decided to return, unaccompanied by a guide, to the Rangers

station. Id. at 22. About 15 minutes into her return, Plaintiff slipped on one of the rocks. 

When Plaintiff slipped, she twisted her ankle. Plaintiff then lifted her foot up, and hit the

top of her foot on the lava rock. As a result of these events, Plaintiff fractured her foot. Id.

at 23. Plaintiff testified that she then proceeded back to the Rangers station. Andia Depo,

86:22-87:14. The fall itself could have caused the fracture to become displaced and

surgery may have been required regardless of whether Plaintiff attempted to walk out of the

lava fields. UMF 25. Plaintiff was given the option of going to the ship’s doctor or the

Hilo emergency room for treatment, and Plaintiff elected to receive treatment with the

ship’s doctor. Id. at 24; Andia Depo, 89:15-25; 90:1-10. Plaintiff testified that, as a result

of the fracture, she was confined to a wheel chair for a period of months, had to take time

off of work, and suffers impaired balance. Id. 15:13-14. 

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

 On October 5, 2006, Defendant Full Service Travel was dismissed from the case, with

prejudice. 

- 4 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

On February 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed the First Amendment Complaint (“FAC”)

against Defendants Full Service Travel,2

 Celebrity and Arnott’s. (Doc. # 3). The FAC

alleges causes of action against Arnott’s for (1) negligence, on grounds that Arnott’s

breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by failing to ensure the safety of participants in their

excursions, and (2) negligence, on grounds that Arnott’s failed to warn Plaintiff of the

known dangers and risks associated with the lava hike. The FAC alleges causes of action

against Celebrity for (1) negligence, on grounds that Celebrity breached its duty of care to

Plaintiff by failing to to offer reasonably reliable and safe excursions, and (2) negligence,

on grounds that Celebrity failed to warn Plaintiff of the dangers and risks associated with

the lava hike. 

On August 18, 2007, Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant

to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants claim they are entitled to

judgment as a matter of law because (1) Arnott’s owed Plaintiff no duty to protect Plaintiff

against the assumed risk of slipping and falling on the lava rock, (2) Arnott’s owed Plaintiff

no duty to warn Plaintiff of the obvious risk of injury of slipping and falling on the lava

rock, (3) Celebrity did not owe Plaintiff a duty to warn of the obvious risk of slipping and

falling on lava rock, (4) the alleged negligence of Defendants did not cause Plaintiff’s

injuries, and (5) the claim for punitive damages against Arnott’s is not warranted. After

receiving evidence and briefing from the parties, the Court heard oral argument on

November 9, 2007. 

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure where the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under the

governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 4 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute over a material fact is genuine if “the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden of establishing

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the

moving party satisfies its initial burden, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the

pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 

Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). 

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view all inferences

drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 

“Credibility determinations [and] the weighing of evidence . . . are jury functions, not those

of a judge, [when] he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at

255. 

Choice of Law

The Court has jurisdiction over this action through diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.

section 1331. Federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the

state in which they are located, except on matters governed by the United States Constitution or

federal statutes, or on procedural issues. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).

The Complaint alleges causes of action in negligence for breach of due care and for failure to

warn. The elements of the tort of negligence are essentially identical under California and Hawaii

law. See White v. Sabatino, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1173 (USDC Haw. 2006); Ladd v. County of

San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (1996). Furthermore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk

is a measure of a defendant’s duty of care, and is essentially identical under both Hawaii and

California law. Yoneda v. Andrew Tom, 110 Haw. 367, 279 (2006); Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th

296, 314-15 (1992). 

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 5 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

Discussion

I. Plaintiff’s Claims Against Arnott’s

Arnott’s contends that the risk of slipping, falling and injuring oneself on uneven,

natural terrain is an inherent risk of lava hiking. Arnott’s contends that without this risk,

the means of viewing this natural phenomenon would be severely limited to the general

public. Arnott’s also contends that the evidence is uncontroverted that Arnott’s provided

Plaintiff with written disclosures concerning the condition of the terrain, that guides would

only give broad direction on the actual hike, that Plaintiff may need to turn around and

head to the Rangers station alone, and that Plaintiff did not need a trail to return safely. 

Arnott’s contends that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Arnott’s is liable for

breach of its duty of care because the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies,

negating any duty of Arnott’s to protect Plaintiff against the inherent risk of slipping and

falling while lava hiking. Arnott’s contends that Plaintiff has failed to assert facts or

introduce any evidence that demonstrates that the conduct of Arnott’s was totally outside

the range of ordinary activity or that the conduct of Arnott’s increased Plaintiff’s risk of

slipping and falling on the lava rock. Arnott’s also contends that there is no triable issue of

fact as to whether Arnott’s is liable to Plaintiff for breach of the duty of Arnott’s to warn

because the risk of slipping and falling on the natural terrain was equally obvious to

Plaintiff and Arnott’s. 

Plaintiff responds that the conduct of Arnott’s constituted gross negligence for the

following reasons: Arnott’s did nothing to provide for Plaintiff’s safety on the lava hike

once she determined she could not go forward; Arnott’s did nothing to warn Plaintiff of the

dangers of approaching too closely to the coastline; Arnott’s did not ensure Plaintiff had

sufficient water for her trip back to the Rangers station; Arnott’s was understaffed; Arnott’s

failed to follow protocol by pressuring Plaintiff to return to the ship rather than obtain

treatment at the Hilo emergency room; Arnott’s offered misleading information about the

trail markings; Arnott’s provided Plaintiff with falsely reassuring directions back to the

Rangers station; and Arnott’s permitted Plaintiff to hike in sneakers instead of boots. 

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 6 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Plaintiff does not dispute that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies, negating

Arnott’s’ duty to prevent Plaintiff from slipping and falling on lava rock. Instead, Plaintiff relies

solely on her contention that the Agreement itself is either an unenforceable exculpatory agreement

or an unenforceable contract of adhesion. Defendants, however, do “not contend, nor have they even

asserted, that the [Agreement] relieves them from liability for any alleged negligence, nor gross

negligence.” Reply, p. 1-2. 

- 7 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

Plaintiff contends that this conduct constituted gross negligence, making the Agreement,

which purports to exculpate Arnott’s of liability, unenforceable. Plaintiff also contends that

the Agreement is an unconscionable and unenforceable contract of adhesion because it is a

pre-printed form, contained multiple signatures and there was no alternative for Plaintiff

but to sign it or wait at the Rangers station while the others hiked, losing a day of her cruise

vacation.3

 

A. Duty of Care

As a general rule, persons have a duty to use due care and avoid injury to others, and

may be held liable if their careless conduct injures another person. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714. 

The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is an exception to this general rule. Knight

v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992). The doctrine arises where “by virtue of the nature of the

activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to

protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury.” Id. at 315.

Whether the doctrine of assumption of risk applies, thereby negating a duty of care, turns

on the “nature of the activity or sport in which the defendant is engaged and the

relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport.” Id. at 309. In

reviewing the nature of the activity, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies

where “conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an

integral part” of the activity itself. Id. at 315. “The overriding consideration in the

application of primary assumption of risk is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill

vigorous participation in the implicated activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature.” 

Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, 32 Cal. App. 4th 248, 253 (1995). 

If the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies, a defendant is only liable for a

plaintiff’s injuries if the defendant “engages in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 7 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport or activity” or increases the inherent

risk involved in the activity. Saville v. Sierra College, 133 Cal. App. 4th 857, 866 (4th

Dist. 2005); Kane v. National Ski Patrol, 88 Cal. App. 4th 204, 209 (4th Dist. 2001). The

relationship between an instructor and student is instructive on the issue of whether the

Arnott’s guides engaged in reckless conduct or increased the inherent risk involved in lava

hiking. Kane, for example, involved candidates for a voluntary ski patrol who participated

in a skills clinic instructed by Larry Stone, a National Ski Patrol System (“NSPS”)

instructor. 88 Cal. App. 4th at 207. Stone led the clinic participants to the most difficult

terrain at the resort. When the participants were reluctant to proceed through a portion of

the trail, which was icy and spotted with trees, rocks and stumps, Stone asked the clinic

participants what they would do “if there was a skier over the side?” Id. at 208. Although

both plaintiffs felt uncomfortable with continuing down the terrain, they carried on,

following Stone’s direction. Id. One plaintiff ultimately caught an “edge” with his ski,

causing him to fall to his death, and the other plaintiff fell and suffered a broken leg. Id. 

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the doctrine of

primary assumption of risk applied, negating the defendant’s duty of care. The court

reasoned that “an instructor’s assessment errors - either in making the necessarily

subjective judgment of skill level or the equally subjective judgment about the difficulty of

the conditions - are in no way ‘outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the

sport.” Id. at 214. 

Plaintiff admits that she is an experienced hiker. Andia Depo, 35:23-25. Plaintiff

admits that falling is always a risk when engaging in any kind of strenuous hike on steep

and uneven terrain. Id. at 153:8-14. Plaintiff admits that prior to starting the hike she was

aware that she would be hiking over “very sharp and uneven surfaces.” Id. at 51:8-13. 

Plaintiff does not introduce any evidence to refute that hiking across uneven and

challenging natural terrain is an inherent risk of hiking to active lava flow, without which

the general public would be substantially deprived of viewing this natural phenomenon. 

The Court concludes that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies, negating

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 8 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

Arnott’s general duty to prevent Plaintiff from slipping and falling on lava rock, an inherent

risk of the activity of lava hiking.

Plaintiff admits that, prior to the hike, Arnott’s provided the following written

disclosures, which she understood: that the natural terrain was uneven and challenging; that

during the hike she would be responsible for the path she traveled; that the guides would

give only broad direction; that she may have to return to the Rangers station alone; and that

the trail was merely a preferred route, and not necessary to safely get back to the Rangers

station. Despite these disclosures, Plaintiff asserts that the decision to allow Plaintiff to

return to the Rangers station alone and subsequent conduct on the part of the Arnott’s

guides constituted gross negligence. The Court finds that the decision to allow Plaintiff to

return alone and subsequent conduct on the part of Arnott’s guides at most constituted

“assessment errors,” but these “subjective judgment[s] about the difficulty of the

condition[s],” were “in no way so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary

activity involved” in the activity of lava hiking. See Kane, 88 Cal. App. 4th at 214. 

Plaintiff emphasizes that Arnott’s’ conduct, such as permitting her to participate in the hike

wearing sneakers instead of hiking boots, was grossly negligent. However, the Court finds

that there is no evidence in the record to support Plaintiff’s conclusion that Arnott’s

conduct, including permitting Plaintiff to wear improper footwear, hike over thin lava crust,

return to the Rangers station alone and without sufficient water, or return to the ship instead

of going to the Hilo emergency room, increased the risk of Plaintiff’s injury. The Court

concludes that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Arnott’s conduct was so

reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity or otherwise increased the

inherent risk involved in the activity of lava hiking. 

The Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Arnott’s

for breach of duty of care. 

B. Duty to Warn 

“It is established law, at least in the exercise of ordinary care, that one is under no

duty to warn another of a danger equally obvious to both.” Marshall v. United Airlines, 35

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 9 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

Cal. App. 3d 84, 90 (1973). 

Plaintiff admits she is an experienced hiker, that she was aware that falling is always

a risk involved in any kind of hike on steep and uneven terrain, that she knew that the

terrain she would cover during the lava hike was rugged and uneven, and that she read the

Agreement and the Brochure, which both emphasize the strenuous nature of the hike, the

possibility that Plaintiff would have to return to the Rangers station alone and nature of the

terrain. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence to demonstrate that the risk of slipping and falling

on lava rock was any less obvious to Plaintiff than it was to Arnott’s. The Court grants

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Arnott’s for failure to warn.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims Against Celebrity

Celebrity contends that although Plaintiff alleges separate causes of action in

negligence for breach of due care and for failure to warn, both of these claims allege only

failure to warn. Celebrity contends that it had no duty to warn Plaintiff of the risk of

slipping and falling on lava rock during a hike through a lava field because the risk was

patently obvious and equally apparent to Plaintiff and Celebrity. 

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on all of

Plaintiff’s claims against Celebrity states in full: 

[P]laintiff relied on Celebrity to provide her with reasonably safe shore

excursions. The dangers of the lava hike with Arnott’s were not readily

apparent to her or anyone else who had not taken the hike. Celebrity’s reliance

on Deroche is misplaced. 

This was not a scooter ride, which a reasonable person knows poses obvious

dangers. It was a hike to a uniquely dangerous place. [Plaintiff] reasonably

relied on Celebrity to exercise due care in providing her with a safe guide

service, and in offering a potentially life-threatening venture. Celebrity had a

duty to ensure that Arnott’s was a reasonable safe and reliable service. Celebrity

is liable for breach of that duty. 

Opposition, p. 19-20. 

A. Duty of Care

The duty of care of the owner of an excursion ship is a matter of federal maritime

law. DeRoche v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd., 31 Cal. App. 4th 802, 807 (1994). “That

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 10 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

duty is to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.” Id. at 807-8. 

Plaintiff fails to introduce any evidence to support her claim that Celebrity did not

exercise due care when it enrolled Plaintiff in “excursion HL 15, the Kilauea Lava Viewing

Hike, an unreasonably dangerous and poorly run and operated excursion.” See FAC, ¶ 35-

36. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff

has failed introduce any evidence demonstrating Celebrity breached its duty of due care to

Plaintiff. The Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim against

Celebrity for breach of duty of care. 

B. Duty to Warn

“[I]t is generally accepted that where a carrier . . . has a continuing obligation for the

care of its passengers, its duty is to warn of dangers known to the carrier in places where

the passenger is invited to, or may reasonably be expected to visit.” DeRoche, 31 Cal. App.

4th at 809. However, “there is no duty to warn of a danger that is as obvious to the injured

party as to the defendant.” Id. at 810. 

As previously discussed, Plaintiff admits she is an experienced hiker, that she was

aware that falling is a risk involved in any kind of hike on steep and uneven terrain, that she

knew that the terrain she would cover for the lava hike was rugged and uneven, and that she

read the Agreement and the Brochure, which both emphasize the strenuous nature of the

hike, the challenging nature of the terrain and the possibility that Plaintiff would have to

return to the Rangers station alone. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to

Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed offer any evidence that demonstrates the

risk of falling on lava rock was any less obvious to her than it was to Celebrity. The Court

grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Celebrity for failure to

warn. 

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 11 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 - 06cv0437 WQH (JMA)

Conclusion

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Celebrity Cruises, Inc. and 

Arnott’s Lodge and Hike Adventures (Doc. # 40) is GRANTED. The Court directs the

Clerk of the Court to enter JUDGMENT for Defendants and against Plaintiff. 

DATED: November 29, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00437-WQH-JMA Document 52 Filed 11/29/07 Page 12 of 12