(Id., quoting Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 309, first emphasis added.) The doctrine of primary assumption
of the risk, therefore, is not limited to application in the sports context, but is applied to activities where the “risk can- not be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.” (Ibid.) Similarly, in Domenghini v. Evans
(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 118, 119-20, plain- tiff was injured during a cattle roundup while helping defendants wrestle a calf to the ground. In that case, plaintiff was not an employee of defendants, and defen- dants were the owners of the calf. The court found that plaintiff ’s claim was barred by primary assumption of the risk. Plaintiff argued that primary assumption of the risk did not apply because defen- dants, the lessors of the ranch where the injury occurred, controlled the manner in which the roundup was conducted and were negligent in conducting it. The Domenghini court rejected this
argument, instead holding, “[p]rimary assumption of the risk bars [plaintiff ’s] claim against the [defendants] because the risk that one will be hit by a calf ’s head is inherent in the nature of a cattle roundup. ‘[T]his is a classic situation where a defendant’s ordinary duty of care is negated due to the nature of the activity and the relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff.” (Ibid.) In the recent case Amezcua v. Los
Angeles Harley-Davidson, the court held that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine absolved an organizer of a motorcycle group ride. (2011 DJDAR 15773 (October 27, 2011).) The Amezuca court explicitly stated that “the primary assumption of the risk doctrine is not lim- ited to competitive sports (or even to co- participants).” The court held that an organized, noncompetitive motorcycle ride fell under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine because it “involves physical exertion and athletic risks not generally associated with automobile driv- ing.” The Court further noted that “the risk of being involved in a traffic collision while riding in a motorcycle procession on a Los Angeles freeway is apparent.”
Send A Doctor To Observe Your Client’s Next DME. DME Observation Services
Medical Recorecord Review Expe
Expert Testimonystimony
Defense Doctor Reports CAALA Members receive a $100 discount.
See Our Database Of
www.imeobservers.com vation Services 818-703-9512
In determining whether the danger
of the primary assumption of the risk defense exists in a case, courts have
focused on whether the activity itself has an inherent danger and what the injured party’s participation was in that activity.
The only mediator in Southern California with 20 years of
clinical medical experience and 20 years of
litigation experience.
University of Chicago: MD 1976 Harvard Law School: JD 1990
He Understands the Issues and the Injuries
Now Available thru Judicate West
800.488.8805
www.judicatewest.com
JANUARY 2012 The Advocate Magazine — 71 Lawrence J. Rudd, M.D., J.D.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96