Rostai v. Neste Enterprises
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McKINSTER, Acting P. J.
In this case we hold that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is a complete defense to an action for damages based on the alleged negligence of a personal fitness trainer in failing to investigate the cardiac risk factors of a client as a result of which the client allegedly suffered a heart attack during his first training workout. Masood Rostai, plaintiff and appellant (hereafter plaintiff), sued Neste Enterprises doing business as Gold’s Gym (hereafter Gold’s Gym), and Jared Shoultz, defendants and respondents (hereafter referred to either…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Knight v. JewettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Saville v. SIERRA COLLEGECalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Muchhala v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2007
- Barrett v. Leech CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Hester v. Public StorageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Plath v. Palo Mar Stables CA1/2California Court of Appeal · 2020