Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

November 3, 2005 Issue   By: Mark Hazelwood

Torts  - Primary Assumption of Risk Defense

 Saville v. Sierra College

Court of Appeal, Third District

 (October 26, 2025)

As a general rule, persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injuries to others, and can be held liable if their careless conduct injures another person.  The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is an exception to the general rule.   This complete defense arises where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect a plaintiff from the risk of harm that caused injury.  

The California Supreme Court established the primary assumption of the risk defense in 1992.  Since that time, primary assumption of the risk has traditionally been applied to sports activities.  In this case, Plaintiff Robin Saville enrolled in a class at Defendant Sierra College entitled Administration of Justice,  also referred to as PC 832 - Arrest, Communications and Firearms.  Mr. Saville took the police training course because he felt it would help him with his goal of becoming a helicopter search and rescue pilot.   The course included arrest techniques. 

The classes involved lectures and role-playing, wherein students played the role of officer and suspect.  During a particular class, police instructors demonstrated various maneuvers for controlling a suspect.  The students then paired up and practiced the techniques.  Saville understood the role-playing was part of the course and did not object at any time.  During a lunch break, Saville and his partner practiced the techniques they had learned that morning.   Saville, playing the role of the suspect,  was injured while being taken down.  He sustained a herniated cervical disc that required surgery.

Saville filed suit against Sierra College alleging that the College negligently failed to: 1) inform Saville when he registered for the class of the risk of injury; and 2) supervise and properly train students to perform the takedown maneuvers correctly.  Specifically, Saville claimed that his neck had struck his partner’s knee during the takedown.  Saville contended that the students had not received instructions on where to place their feet when performing the maneuvers, and that his partner was positioned in the wrong way.  At deposition, police instructors acknowledged that Saville’s partner had performed the maneuver incorrectly. 

Sierra College filed a motion for summary judgment arguing Saville’s claims were barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine.  The trial court granted the motion.   Saville appealed, claiming that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply to the activity that Saville was engaged in; that the instructors increased the risks inherent in the maneuvers being taught; and the College negligently structured the class.

The Third Appellate District affirmed the trial court decision.  In doing so, the Court of Appeal reiterated that primary assumption of the risk does not depend on a particular’s plaintiff’s subjective knowledge or appreciation of the potential for risk.  Rather, the court looks to the nature of the activity and the relationship of the defendant and plaintiff to that activity.  A defendant has no duty to prevent risks that are inherent in the activity.  While it is true that primary assumption of the risk has traditionally been applied to sports, the takedown maneuvers in the police training course were similar to the risks of injury inherent in sports.  The maneuvers were inherently dangerous.  The maneuvers were also a necessary part of the curriculum.   The Court of Appeal reasoned that imposing a duty to eliminate the risk of injury from this activity would defeat the very purpose of the class.   The Court concluded that there was no reason that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine should not apply to this type of activity.

In his complaint, Saville contended that Sierra College was negligent as the instructor and sponsor of the course.  The primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies to instructors and sponsors, except where the instructor increases the risks inherent in the learning process.  In order to prevail, a plaintiff must show the instructor acted with intent to cause injury or was reckless.  Here, Sierra College acknowledged that while instructors did demonstrate proper techniques, they did not verbally teach students how to position their feet.  The Court of Appeal held that these facts did not rise to the level of intentional or reckless harm.   Therefore,  primary assumption of the risk applied and Sierra College had no duty to prevent the risk of harm.  

COMMENT

This case is a good indication that the full scope of the defense of primary assumption of the risk has yet to be established.  Primary assumption of the risk can be applied  to non-sports activities.                 

____
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 San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.