Opinion ID: 2518817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Secondary Assumption of Risk

Text: In Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 320, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696, we made clear that in primary assumption of risk cases the defendant owes no duty to protect a plaintiff from a particular risk that the plaintiff is construed to have assumed. In the sports context, the plaintiff is deemed to have assumed those risks inherent in the sport in which plaintiff chooses to participate. A defendant participating in the same sporting activity owes no duty to a coparticipating plaintiff to avoid ordinary negligence as to those risks. As indicated in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226, and clarified in Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 320, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696, the secondary assumption of risk doctrine relates to the allocation of damages, not to the question of duty. The substantial change adopted in Li was to replace the absolute bar to recovery if a plaintiffs own negligence contributed to his or her injury, with a system of comparative fault in which liability was assigned in direct proportion to the amount of negligence of each of the parties. (Li, at p. 829, 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226.) The Li court did not alter the legally accepted concepts of negligence. (Id, at p. 813 & fn. 6a, 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226.) The Li court discussed the doctrines of last clear chance and assumption of risk as concepts that had operated to ameliorate the harshness of the all `or nothing' contributory negligence scheme. ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 824, 119 Cal. Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226.) Because it was replacing that scheme with the comparative negligence approach it abolished the last clear chance rule. (Id. at p. 829, 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226.) Likewise it did away with the assumption of risk principle to the extent that it is merely a variant of the former doctrine of contributory negligence. (Ibid.) The Li court did not use the terms primary and secondary assumption of risk. It did, however, observe that under the system of comparative negligence, the defense of assumption of risk would merge into the comparative negligence scheme, to the extent that it had previously operated as a variant of contributory negligence. Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696, clarified the manner and degree to which assumption of risk merged into the comparative negligence scheme. The Knight, plurality explained that the primary assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is `no duty' on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk. (Knight, at p. 308, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) It is the secondary assumption of risk principle that was merged into Li's new comparative negligence approach. Under this merged approach the analysis proceeds as follows. The first question is whether the defendant has breached a duty to the plaintiff. The duty analysis depends on the nature of the activity or sport and the parties' relationship to it. (Knight, at p. 308, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) Once it has been established that a duty has been breached, however that duty is appropriately defined under the circumstances of the case, the general principles of comparative fault are applied to assign liability in proportion to the parties' respective fault. Thus, primary assumption of risk applies to the question of duty and secondary assumption of risk applies to the calculation of damages. In applying an assumption of risk analysis it is important not to confuse the question of duty with that of damages. The primary assumption of risk doctrine operates to limit the duty owed by the defendant. If the defendant is found to have breached that duty, the question of damages is calculated by taking the plaintiffs comparative fault, if any, into account. The primary assumption of risk doctrine articulates what kind of duty is owed and to whom. Only if a defendant is found to have breached a duty, does the question of damages arise. In California, tort damages are calculated under the principles of comparative fault set out in Li supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226. ( Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 300, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.)