Vine v. Bear Valley Ski Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PARRILLI, J.
In personal injury cases arising from sporting activities, a defendant cannot be charged with a duty to protect the plaintiff from risks inherent in the sport. Those risks are borne by the plaintiff as a matter of law, under the “primary assumption of risk” doctrine. However, the defendant can be held liable for breaching the duty not to increase the risks encountered by the plaintiff beyond the level inherent in the sport. This is an aspect of “secondary assumption of risk,” which operates as part of the comparative fault scheme. The plaintiff’s acceptance of the risk is…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Badie v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Knight v. JewettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- US Ecology, Inc. v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Huff v. WilkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Harb v. City of BakersfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Luna v. VelaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.