Knight v. Jewett

Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), was a case decided by the California Supreme Court, ruling that the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California did not completely eliminate the defense of assumption of risk in an action for negligence.[1]

Knight v. Jewett
Decided August 24, 1992
Full case nameKendra Knight v. Michael Jewett
Citation(s)3 Cal.4th 296 (1992)
834 P.2d 696 (1992)
11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2
Case history
Prior history275 Cal.Rptr. 292 (1990) (affirmed)
Holding
Assumption of risk is still a defense to liability even under a comparative negligence scheme.
Court membership
Chief JusticeMalcolm M. Lucas
Associate JusticesEdward A. Panelli, Joyce L. Kennard, Stanley Mosk, Armand Arabian, Ronald M. George, Marvin R. Baxter
Case opinions
PluralityGeorge, joined by Lucas, Arabian
Concur/dissentMosk
Concur/dissentPanelli, joined by Baxter
DissentKennard

Background

The plaintiff sued for personal injuries after the defendant stepped on her hand during a touch football game.

Decision

The court recognized two categories of assumption of risk. One was primary assumption of risk in which the defendant owes no duty of care to protect the plaintiff from the risk that caused the injury. The other is secondary assumption of risk in which the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, who knowingly encounters the risk created by the defendant's breach of that duty.

The court held that secondary assumption of risk had been merged into the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California but that primary assumption of risk could still serve as a defense to negligence. The court determined that in a touch football game, the only duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is to not be reckless and wanton. Because the plaintiff was injured in the normal course of the touch football game, the injury fell under primary assumption of risk, and she was barred from recovery.[2]

gollark: This would quickly weed bad parents out of the population. Also all parents.
gollark: Idea: whenever a parent fails to parent correctly, orbital laser strike.
gollark: The other real programmer way would be to intimidate the computer into rotating the image, through sheer force of will.
gollark: Apparently, yes.
gollark: Also, some phones "rotate" it by changing the metadata or something, and it seems to (WHYYYY, it should be a screenshot) be a picture.

References
  1. Henderson, J.A. et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2007, p. 475
  2. Henderson, p. 476
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.