Decided August 24 1992 Chief judge Malcolm M. Lucas | End date 1992 | |
Full case name Kendra Knight v. Michael Jewett Citation(s) 3 Cal.4th 296 (1992)834 P.2d 696 (1992)11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 Prior action(s) 275 Cal.Rptr. 292 (1990) (affirmed) Associate Judges Edward A. Panelli, Joyce L. Kennard, Stanley Mosk, Armand Arabian, Ronald M. George, Marvin R. Baxter Plurality George, joined by Lucas, Arabian Similar Vosburg v Putney, Garratt v Dailey, Brown v Kendall, Summers v Tice, Tuberville v Savage | ||
Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), was a case decided by the California Supreme Court, ruling that the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California did not completely eliminate the defense of assumption of risk in an action for negligence.
Contents
Factual background
The plaintiff sued for personal injuries after the defendant stepped on her hand during a touch football game.
Decision
The court recognized two categories of assumption of risk. The first was primary assumption of risk, where the defendant owes no duty of care to protect the plaintiff from the risk that caused the injury. The second category is secondary assumption of risk, where the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and the plaintiff knowingly encounters the risk created by the defendant's breach of that duty. The court held that secondary assumption of risk had been merged into the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California, but that primary assumption of risk could still serve as a defense to negligence. The court determined that in a touch football game, the only duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is to not be reckless and wanton. Because the plaintiff was injured in the normal course of the touch football game, the injury fell under primary assumption of risk and she was barred from recovery.