Recently, the California Supreme Court in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair L.P., Case No. S195031, decided whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applied to non-sport recreational activities. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision that limited the doctrine’s applicability to “active sports.” The Supreme Court held that primary assumption of risk applies to injuries from physical recreation, including sport and non-sport activities.
In Nalwa, the Plaintiff fractured her wrist while riding as a passenger in a bumper car at an amusement park. She sued the amusement park operator alleging, among other things, negligence and common carrier liability.
As applied to recreational activity, the assumption of risk doctrine limits the general duty of care of operators, instructors, and participants. The duty owed is to not increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity. In reaching its holding that this duty should apply to all recreational activities, the Court stated that the policy behind the rule seeks to avoid chilling vigorous participation in such activities.
The import of this case comes with the ability of owner and operator defendants to assert the assumption of risk defense in a far wider range of cases than it once could. In cases involving injuries relating to recreational activity, owner and operator defendants should be more successful in avoiding or limiting potential liability for injuries that are inherent in a given activity.
This document is intended to provide you with information about product liability related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.