Low, Ball & Lynch’s
WEEKLY
LAW RESUME
Duty
of Care - Assumption of Risk
Jane
Hemady v.
(
Court of Appeal, Second
District
This case concerned the
standard of care which applied to a school for injuries occurring in a middle
school golf class. It also discussed the application of the assumption of risk
doctrine.
Jane Hemedy, a 12 year old student, was struck in the face with a
golf club by another student during a seventh grade physical education golf
class. She sued the
The Court of Appeal
reversed. The Court stated that the applicable duty of care depends on the
nature of the sport at issue and the parties’ relationship to the sport. The
Supreme Court has established an exception to this rule in certain sport
settings. Under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, a coach or
co-participant’s potential liability is not governed by a prudent person
standard, but by a standard to avoid intentionally injuring a player, or
engaging in conduct that is so reckless so as to be outside the range of
ordinary activity involved in the sport. In this case, the Court decided not to
apply the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. The Court decided that being
hit in the head by a golf club swung by another golfer was not an inherent risk
of the game, especially in a physical education golf class taught to a group of
seventh graders. Thus, applying ordinary rules of negligence would not require a
fundamental alteration of the game, and would not chill a coach’s role to
challenge student athletes or discourage competition or vigorous
participation.
The Court determined
that applying the prudent person standard of care to determine whether the
school district or its employees were liable for the injuries to the student,
which occurred during school hours, was most
appropriate. The Court felt that applying this standard was more consistent with
prior cases that have analyzed liability in analogous situations. Further, there
was no indication that the Supreme Court in its holding on primary assumption of
the risk intended to overrule this line of cases.
The judgment was
reversed and remanded to the trial court.
COMMENT
This opinion again
exemplifies the rather fact-specific analysis that is necessary in order to
determine the applicability of the assumption of the risk doctrine, even in
sport settings. Also, the overriding consideration in this matter seems to be
the Court’s concern with injuries that occurred at a mandatory physical
education class.
____
To order
a printed version of this analysis, or change
your subscription information, reply to this transmission Information regarding
this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available
from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at
WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two
times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in