Court Opinion

ID: 9745272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:45:24.955574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:58.520987
License: Public Domain

DOSSEE, J.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that summary judgment was properly entered because this case involves primary implied assumption of risk. (Maj. opn., ante, pp. 534-535.) In my view, this case involves secondary implied assumption of risk and, accordingly, is governed by principles of comparative fault. Since the trier of fact must determine the relative responsibility of plaintiff Gary Bushnell and defendant’s agent Daniel Tamori, summary judgment should not have been granted.
In Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696], the Supreme Court considered “the question of the proper application of the ‘assumption of risk’ doctrine in light of [the] adoption of comparative fault principles in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226, 78 A.L.R.3d 393].” (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 299-300.) The plurality opinion summarized its holding as follows: “In cases involving ‘primary assumption of risk’—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—the doctrine continues to operate as a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery. In cases involving ‘secondary assumption of risk’— where the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter a known risk imposed by the defendant’s breach of duty—the doctrine is merged into the comparative fault scheme, and the trier of fact, in apportioning the loss resulting from the injury, may consider the relative responsibility of the parties.” (Id. at pp. 314-315.) “[T]he question of the existence and scope of a defendant’s duty of care is a legal question which depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties’ general relationship to the activity, and is an issue to be decided by the court, rather than the jury. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 313, italics in original.)
In Knight, “defendant was a participant in the touch football game in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of her injury, and thus the question before [the court] involve[d] the circumstances under which a participant in such a sport may be held liable for an injury sustained by another participant.” (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 318.) The plurality opinion *536followed “[t]he overwhelming majority of the cases, both within and outside California,” concluding that . a participant in an active sport breaches a legal duty of care to other participants—i.e., engages in conduct that properly may subject him or her to financial liability—only if the participant intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.” (Id. at pp. 318, 320, fn. omitted.) Since the defendant in Knight had not engaged in such conduct, the case fell with the primary implied assumption of risk doctrine, and, therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. (Id. at pp. 320-321.)
Although the Knight opinion did not address the circumstances under which defendants other than coparticipants were subject to financial liability, it noted that “in the sports setting, as elsewhere, the nature of the applicable duty or standard of care frequently varies with the role of the defendant whose conduct is at issue in a given case.” (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 318.) Among the different roles identified in the opinion were those of “sports instructors and coaches [citations].” (Ibid.) Since Knight, the Courts of Appeal have considered the liability of such defendants.
In Tan v. Goddard (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1528 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 89], the Court of Appeal held that a jockey instructor owed a duty of care to one of his students. (Id. at pp. 1534-1536.) The court began its analysis by noting that “we do not deal with the relationship between coparticipants in a sport, or with the duty that an operator may or may not owe to a spectator. Instead, we deal with the duty of a coach or trainer to a student who has entrusted himself to the former’s tutelage.” (Id. at p. 1534.) The court later emphasized that it was “dealing not with a sports participant, but with an instructor who is training a student how to become a participant.” (Id. at p. 1535.)
In concluding that the instructor owed a duty of care to the student, the Tan court, like the Knight plurality, turned to the common law: “There are precedents reaching back for most of this century that find an absence of duty to coparticipants and, often, to spectators, but the law is otherwise as applied to coaches and instructors. For them, the general rule is that coaches and instructors owe a duty of due care to persons in their charge. (See Lowell, Liability for Sports Activities, in Law and Amateur Sports (1982) pp. 45, 61; Champion, Fundamentals of Sports Law (1990) § 3.1, p. 60; and see Miyamoto, Liability of Colleges and Universities for Injuries During Extramural Activities (1988) 15 J. of C. & U.Law 149, 152; Jones, College Athletes: Illness or Injury and the Decision to Return (1992) 40 Buffalo L.Rev. 113, 141; Rest.2d Torts, §314A, and com. (b); Stehn v. Bernarr *537MacFadden Foundations, Inc. (6th Cir. 1970) 434 F.2d 811, 813; Everett v. Bucky Warren, Inc. (1978) 376 Mass. 280 [380 N.E.2d 653, 659]; Miller v. Macalester College (1962) 262 Minn. 418 [115 N.W. 666]; and Knight itself, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 318 [citations to cases involving suits against sports instructors and coaches].) The coach or instructor is not, of course, an insurer (Stehn v. Bernarr MacFadden Foundations, Inc., supra, 434 F.2d at p. 813), and a student may be held to notice that which is obvious and to ask appropriate questions (see Vendrell v. School District No. 26C, Malheur County (1962) 233 Ore. 1 [376 P.2d 406].) But all of the authorities that comment on the issue have recognized the existence of a duty of care.” (Tan v. Goddard, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1534-1535.)
Likewise, in Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 817 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 270], the Court of Appeal held that a horse jumping instructor owed a duty of care to one of her students “to avoid an unreasonable risk of injury to plaintiff and to take care that the jumping array was not beyond the capability of horse and rider.” (Id. at p. 823.) Once again, the court looked to the common law in making this determination: “Upon review of the authorities relied upon in Tan and of case law in other jurisdictions (e.g., Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ. (1989) 73 N.Y.2d 650 [543 N.Y.S.2d. 29, 541 N.E.2d. 29]; Kirk v. Washington State University (1987) 109 Wn.2d 448 [746 P.2d 285], cited in Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, at p. 314), we have concluded that Tan was correctly decided and agree that the general rule is that coaches and instructors owe a duty of care to their charges.” (Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at pp. 823-824.)
In order to determine whether the general rule set forth in Tan and Galardi should be followed in a given case, it is appropriate to look not to “the labels given to the sporting participants, but instead [to] the facts surrounding their levels of experience and/or their relationships to one another in the activity resulting in the plaintiff’s injury. [Citations.]” (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1046 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 922].) In this case, at the time of the accident, Daniel Tamori, a second degree black belt and a former national champion, was working as a volunteer instructor at the club. Bushnell was only a white belt. During a typical weekly session, students practiced throws on partners of like ability, size and age while instructors circulated to provide instruction, including hands-on instruction. On the evening in question, however, Bushnell’s usual practice partner was absent, so he was paired with Tamori. The accident occurred while Bushnell was practicing a tai otoshi throw, also called a body drop, on Tamori. In its response to Bushnell’s statement of undisputed facts, *538the club acknowledged that “[d]ue to their superior ability, the instructors could successfully] resist being thrown by a student, but as a practice partner and instructor, the instructor allows himself to be thrown, assisting the thrower in this process by jumping over the thrower’s leg.”
Given both the gross disparity in Bushnell’s and Tamori’s relative levels of experience and the corresponding superior relationship that Tamori held over Bushnell during the practice session, I would hold that Tamori had a duty to avoid an unreasonable risk of injury to Bushnell and to avoid taking Bushnell beyond his level of experience and capability. (See Regents of University of California v. Superior Court, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 1046; Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 823.) “Having determined that [Tamori] had such a duty of care, the breach of which was a possible cause of [Bushnell’s] injury (a matter which ultimately must be decided by the trier of fact), this case necessarily falls into the category of secondary assumption of risk. In such circumstance, it is for the trier of fact to determine the cause of the injury and to apportion the loss resulting from the injury; in so doing it may consider the relative responsibility of the parties. (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, at p. 315.)” (Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 823.) Accordingly, I would reverse the summary judgment in favor of the club.