The Misinterpretation of Knight
v. Jewett
Linda Sharp, University of
Northern Colorado
Peg Ciccolella, University of the
Pacific
The Problem
• Are California courts misinterpreting the
important precedent of Knight v. Jewett in
regard to the “no-duty” analysis in the
sport/physical activity context?
No duty=primary assumption of risk for inherent
risks of activity
Knight v. Jewett (Cal. 1992)
Issue
What duty, if any, is owed to a coparticipant in an
active sport?
Facts of Knight v. Jewett
•
•
•
•
•
Recreational touch FB game
Men and women playing
Female P injured by rough play of coparticipant
Coparticipant stepped on P’s hand and finger
P sued based on negligence
Knight Holding by Cal. Supreme
Court
• The judgment of the Court of Appeal, upholding
the summary judgment entered by the trial
court, is affirmed.
• The court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's tort
claim for negligence, holding that it was barred
by the primary assumption of risk doctrine for
ordinary, careless conduct during a sports
activity.
Knight rationale
• The question of the existence and scope of a
defendant's duty of care is a legal question which
depends on the nature of the sport or activity in
question and on the parties' general relationship
to the activity, and is an issue to be decided by
the court, rather than the jury.
Knight rationale (cont)
• Seminal case regarding duty of care owed by
sports coparticipants
▫ Liability only for intentional misconduct or
reckless disregard
▫ Players assume the risk of dangers from “vigorous
participation”
▫ To impose a duty here would cause a basic
alteration of the sport
Knight rationale (cont)
• The overwhelming majority of the cases, both
within and outside California, that have
addressed the issue of coparticipant liability in
such a sport, have concluded that it is improper
to hold a sports participant liable to a
coparticipant for ordinary careless conduct
committed during the sport
Knight rationale (cont)
• In the heat of an active sporting event like baseball or football, a
participant's normal energetic conduct often includes accidentally
careless behavior.
Vigorous participation in such sporting events likely would be
chilled if legal liability were to be imposed on a participant on the
basis of his or her ordinary careless conduct
• Even when a participant's conduct violates a rule of the game and
may subject the violator to internal sanctions prescribed by the
sport itself, imposition of legal liability for such conduct might well
alter fundamentally the nature of the sport by deterring participants
from vigorously engaging in activity
Kahn v. East Side Union High School District,
75 P. 3d 30 (Cal. 2003)
• Should the rationale of the Knight case be
extended to the realm of coaching and
instruction to essentially immunize a coach or
teacher from the consequences of his/her
negligent behavior?
Facts of the Kahn case
• 14 year-old novice member of j.v. swim team
• Suffered a broken neck as she did a practice dive
into a shallow racing pool
• Student had a fear of diving
• Coach promised her she did not have to dive at
meets
Facts of the Kahn case (cont)
• On day of injury coach told student she had to
dive or not swim in relay race
• Student sustained injury while practicing dive
from starting blocks with other team members
• Dives into racing pools carry significant risk of
injury
• Fact issue as to type of diving instruction
provided at practice
The Legal Claims
• Negligent instruction regarding diving
• Negligent supervision
• Negligence by coach in insisting student dive
despite fear, lack of expertise, previous promise
that she would not have to dive
Lower Court Holding
• Granted summary judgment for coach and
school district
• Under doctrine of assumption of risk, no liability
unless
▫ “elevated risks inherent in competitive swimming”
OR
▫ “had behaved recklessly”
Court of Appeals’ Decision
• Affirmed summary judgment
• Doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred
claim
• Shallow-water diving is a danger that is inherent
in competitive swimming
California Supreme Court
• Reversed and remanded
• Adopted the “reckless disregard” standard for
coach’s liability
• Coach’s negligence considered to be inherent
risk of sport
• Remand to consider whether coach acted with
“reckless disregard” in this case
Kahn rationale
• Question of duty depends on role of defendant
• Cases post-Knight held that instructor/coach
generally does not increase inherent risks of
sport simply by urging student to strive to excel
or to reach a new level of competence
• Court is concerned about “chilling effect” the
imposition of a duty of care here would have on
enterprise of teaching and learning
Kahn Rationale (cont)
• To recognize a duty of care here would tend to
alter nature of activity or chill vigorous
participation
▫ Participants need instruction to compete
▫ Part of coaches’ role is to challenge or “push” a
student to advance
▫ Do not want to inhibit adequate instruction and
learning
Kahn Rationale (cont)
• In cases alleging sports instructor has required
student to perform beyond capacity or without
adequate instruction need to show:
▫ Intentional action OR
▫ Reckless action “totally outside the range of the
ordinary activity” involved in teaching or coaching
the sport (p.43)
Ohman v. Bd. of Educ. N.Y.
90 N.E.2d 474 (N.Y. 1949)
• Parents do not send their children to school to
be returned to them maimed because of the
absence of proper supervision or the
abandonment of supervision. Id. at 476.
Other cases adopting Kahn
rationale
• Schweichler v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (App. Div.
2005)
▫ HS student injured during wrestling practice
▫ Coach incorrectly positioned student as coach
demonstrated wrestling move
▫ Court used Kahn rationale
▫ A cause of action against a coach cannot be based on
mere negligence
Other cases adopting Kahn
rationale
• Baltierra v. Corona-Norco Unified Sch. Dist. (App.
Div. 2006)
▫ HS FB player injured in weightlifting class
▫ Coach required players to do “one repetition
maximum squat lift”
▫ Player sustained serious back injuries
▫ To hold coach liable for injury here would “inhibit
HS FB by chilling vigorous participation in the
activity”
▫ Action barred under primary A/R
ROSTAI v. NESTE ENTERPRISES
138 CAL.APP.4TH 326 (2006)
Issue:
Does primary assumption of risk apply to a
personal fitness trainer supervising exercise?
Rostai
Facts:
• P hires “certified” trainer for fitness program.
• P is 46, male, sedentary, and overweight.
• 1st workout, P feels fatigue, heat, thirst, chest pain.
• P repeatedly asks to stop. Workout continues.
• MI ensues. Emergency stent surgery later that day.
Rostai
Plaintiff’s COA
Negligence of personal trainer
Duty?
To investigate P’s health history, current
condition, & cardiac risk factors.
Breach?
Trainer’s failure caused the heart attack to occur
under his supervision.
Rostai
Defense: Primary Assumption of Risk
Apply Doctrine if:
Imposing a duty in activities with inherent risks
changes its purpose . . .“alters” and “chills”.
Consider:
1. nature of the activity.
2. role of D.
Rostai
Court’s Analysis
Activity?
Fitness training is an activity.
Student-instructor relationship.
Role of Trainer . . .challenge the student
beyond current fitness levels.
Rostai
Court’s Analysis
Inherent Risks?
Trainer will not accurately assess fitness level.
Student will not be able to meet instructor’s
challenge.
Various injuries, including a heart attack.
Rostai
Court’s Findings
• At most, trainer did not accurately assess P’s
fitness.
• P’s symptoms during workout?
Could be interpreted as poor conditioning
rather than symptoms of MI.
• No evidence of intent or reckless conduct.
• No evidence of increased risk.
Rostai
Court’s Findings
Therefore, no duty to protect against heart attack
during exercise.
Affirm MSJ for D.
HEMADY v. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCH. DIST.
143 CAL.APP.4TH 566 (2006)
Issue:
What standard of care governs injuries occurring
in a middle school golf class?
Primary assumption of risk apply? Limited duty?
or
Prudent Person Standard of Care?
Hemady
Facts:
•
•
•
•
Classmate swings golf club during 7th grade
P.E. class and hits P in the mouth.
Teeth knocked out, jaw shattered. Plastic
surgery to repair disfigured face.
D swung club w/o trying to hit ball.
D ignored teacher’s instructions.
• COA: Negligent supervision of instructor.
Hemady
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
Nature of the activity?
A 7th grade golf class is instructional,
mandatory, and non-competitive.
Inherent risks?
Being hit in the head by a golf club is not an
inherent risk of the game.
Especially in a 7th grade class.
Hemady
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
“Alter” or “Chill”?
Imposing upon golfers the obligation to look
before swinging:
1. does not require a fundamental alteration
of the game.
2. does not discourage competition or
vigorous participation.
3. does not chill a coach or instructor’s role
to challenge students to hit further or
more accurately.
Hemady
Court’s Analysis:
• Policy considerations of Knight and Kahn not
applicable under these circumstances.
• Therefore, application of prudent person
standard.
• Rev MSJ for D and Remand.
QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS
Do circumstances matter?
Competitive sports/co-participants
Instructional activities/teacher-student
Conduct based upon “in the moment” decisions v.
deliberate design?
Voluntary v. mandatory activities?
Special qualifications, e.g., “certified” trainer?
Organizational standards re conduct?
QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS (cont)
• Matter of fact for jury or matter of law for
court?
• Interpretation gives immunity for negligent
behavior?
Reasonable care under the circumstances?
Christian v. Rowland