Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

April 13, 2026 Issue By: Ray Coates

Torts - School District Owes No Duty Of Care To Injured Baseball Player

Avila v. Citrus Community College District

(April 6, 2026)

California Supreme Court

Injuries are an inherent part of sports. In recent years, courts have examined when public entities may be held responsible for injuries that occur on public parks and fields, and school campuses. In this case, Plaintiff Jose Avila was a student and baseball player for Rio Honda Community College. In 2001, Rio Honda played a pre-season road game against Citrus Community College. During the game, a Rio Honda pitcher hit a Citrus batter with a pitch. When Avila came to bat the next inning for Rio Honda, he was drilled in the head with a pitch, cracking his batting helmet.

Although dazed, Avila went to first base at the direction of his manager. He eventually moved to second base. A Citrus player then motioned to the Rio Honda bench that Avila needed help and he was removed from the game. Avila claimed to have suffered serious personal injuries as a result of the pitch.

Avila sued the Citrus Community College District (“District”), and other individuals and entities. He claimed that he was intentionally beaned. Avila alleged that the District was negligent by failing to supervise and control the Citrus pitcher; by failing to provide adequate medical care; and for failure to provide umpires during the pre-season game. The District demurred to the complaint on the grounds that it was immune, pursuant to California Government Code section 831.7 (hazardous recreational immunity statute). The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action against the District. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 831.7 does not extend immunity to claims predicated on the negligent supervision of public school athletes. The California Supreme Court granted the District’s petition for review and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court first analyzed whether section 831.7 provided immunity under these facts. Looking to the legislative history of the statute, the Court held that section 831.7 was adopted as a premises liability measure, and was designed to limit liability based on a public entity’s failure either to maintain public property or to warn of dangerous conditions of public property. The Court held, however, that this immunity was not intended to overrule the established duty that schools have to supervise students. Thus, the Court concluded that school sports, and organized intercollegiate games in particular, are not “recreational” within the meaning of section 831.7. The Court, therefore held that the District was not immune to suit.

The Court then went onto address whether the District owed a duty to Avila. Even though the District did not raise the issue in the demurrer, the Court chose to consider whether the primary assumption of the risk doctrine precluded liability. Primary assumption of the risk arises when, as a matter of law, a defendant owes no duty to protect a plaintiff from a particular harm that is inherent in the sport or activity. In this case, the Court held that being hit by a pitch is an inherent risk of baseball. Despite a strong dissent, the majority of the Court also held that being hit intentionally is an inherent and long-standing risk in baseball. The Court concluded that the District owed no duty to Avila to prevent the Citrus pitcher from hitting batters.

The Court also ruled that the District did not breach a duty by failing to have umpires at the game or medical care for Avila. The District owed a duty to not increase risks inherent in the sport. The game of baseball, however, is often played without umpires. As for the issue of medical care, Avila’s school brought its’ own coaches and trainers. The Court, therefore, did not believe that the District increased any inherent risk. In reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court concluded its’ decision as follows: “In the possibly apocryphal words of New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra, ‘it ain’t over till it’s over,’ but this means that for Avila’s complaint against Citrus College, it’s over.”

COMMENT
This case resolves a split in Court of Appeal decisions concerning California Government Code section 831.7 - the hazardous recreational immunity statute. The Supreme Court held that section 831.7 does not apply to school sponsored sports, even at the collegiate level. The Court also re-affirmed that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine can present a complete defense in sports injury cases.

____
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.