Court Opinion

ID: 9593417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:22:22.587705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:06.696260
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I dissent. Like Justice George, I conclude that Harbors and Navigation Code section 658 (section 658) requires reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. (See cone. & dis. opn. of George, J., ante, p. 368.) The lead opinion’s interpretation of the application of Evidence Code section 669 to section 658, subdivision (d), is entirely unpersuasive.
The lead opinion looks to be somewhat tentative, for its conclusions end repeatedly in the wan acroteleutic that they “appear” or “seem” to be “reasonable.” (Lead opn., ante, pp. 349-350.) The lead opinion’s hesitancy is understandable, for its interpretation of section 658 flies in the face of the section’s plain language and legislative history, as Justice George’s concurring and dissenting opinion (ante, p. 364-368) clearly establishes.
Moreover, as I explained in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Knight v. Jewett, ante, page 321 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 834 P.2d 712], we should abolish the anachronistic doctrine of implied assumption of risk. It will inevitably come about—preferably sooner than later.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 1,1992. Lucas, C. J., Mosk, J., and George, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.