Avila v. Citrus Community College District
38 Cal.4th 148, 131 P.3d 383, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 299 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a host school's duty of care to a visiting athlete is limited to not increasing the inherent risks of the sport. Being intentionally hit by a pitch is considered an inherent risk of baseball, and therefore a host school is not liable for failing to prevent such an injury.
Facts:
- Rio Hondo Community College and Citrus Community College were playing a preseason baseball game hosted by Citrus College.
- During the game, a Rio Hondo pitcher hit a Citrus College batter with a pitch.
- In the top of the next inning, Jose Luis Avila, a Rio Hondo player, came to bat.
- The Citrus College pitcher then hit Avila in the head with a pitch, cracking his batting helmet.
- Avila alleged this pitch was an intentional 'beanball' thrown in retaliation for the previous inning's event.
- Avila staggered, felt dizzy, and was told by his coach to stay in the game.
- He subsequently walked off the field and suffered serious personal injuries, alleging no one tended to him immediately.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Luis Avila sued the Citrus Community College District in a California trial court.
- The District filed a demurrer, arguing it was immune from liability and owed no duty of care to Avila.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action against the District.
- Avila, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- A divided Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal.
- The District, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of California, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a host community college have a legal duty to protect a visiting baseball player from being intentionally hit by a pitch thrown by the host team's pitcher?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
No. A host community college does not have a legal duty to protect a visiting player from being intentionally hit by a pitch, because being hit, even intentionally, is an inherent risk of the sport of baseball under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The court first held that Government Code section 831.7, which provides immunity for 'hazardous recreational activities,' does not apply to supervised, school-sponsored athletics because they are part of a school's educational mission, not merely 'recreational.' The court then analyzed the District’s duty under the primary assumption of risk framework from Knight v. Jewett. While a host school owes a duty not to increase the inherent risks of a sport, being intentionally hit by a pitch ('beanball') is a fundamental part of baseball's custom and strategy. Because this is an inherent risk, the District had no duty to eliminate it, and its failure to control its pitcher or provide umpires was not a breach of duty. The duty to provide medical care was not breached because Avila's own team staff was present and responsible for his care.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennard, J.
Yes. A host college should have a duty to protect a player from being intentionally hit, as this constitutes an intentional tort, not an inherent risk of the sport. While concurring that statutory immunity does not apply, this opinion dissents from the majority's duty analysis. It argues that determining what constitutes an 'inherent risk' is a question of fact for a trial court, not a question of law for an appellate court to decide on demurrer based on its own research. The opinion emphasizes that official baseball rules condemn throwing at a batter's head, which contradicts the majority's finding that it is an inherent part of the game. The doctrine of primary assumption of risk should not be expanded to absolve liability for intentional torts, and the plaintiff should have been given leave to amend his complaint to allege the school's coaches ordered or condoned the act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine to intercollegiate sports, significantly narrowing the scope of duty a host school owes to visiting athletes. It controversially expands the definition of 'inherent risk' to include conduct that violates the sport's official rules and may be intentional, such as throwing a 'beanball.' This precedent makes it more difficult for student-athletes to bring negligence claims for injuries caused by an opponent's aggressive or retaliatory actions, allowing courts to dismiss such cases at the pleading stage by classifying the conduct as an assumed risk of the sport.
Unlock the full brief for Avila v. Citrus Community College District