Lexplug logoLexplug

Eriksson v. Nunnink

California Court of Appeal
233 Cal. App. 4th 708 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A pre-injury release of liability for future negligence, signed by a decedent, is a valid defense against wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims brought by the decedent's heirs, as a defendant owes no greater duty of care to the heirs than was owed to the decedent.


Facts:

  • Plaintiffs Karan and Stan Eriksson hired defendant Kristi Nunnink to be the equestrian eventing coach for their 17-year-old daughter, Mia.
  • In May 2006, Mia signed a release of liability agreement with Nunnink, releasing her from all liability except for "direct, willful and wanton negligence." Mia's mother, Karan, co-signed the document as "Rider's Parent."
  • In October 2006, at the Ram Tap competition, Mia's horse, Kory, fell, suffering a concussion and a hematoma.
  • Following the fall at Ram Tap, Karan Eriksson told Nunnink that Mia's competition season was over.
  • Despite the horse's recent injuries and Karan's stated intention, Nunnink persuaded Karan to allow Mia to compete in the Galway Downs event in November 2006.
  • During the cross-country portion of the Galway Downs event, which Mia's parents were watching, Mia's horse had four refusals at jumps, which by rule should have resulted in her elimination from the competition.
  • Mia continued on the course after she should have been eliminated and at the 19th jump, her horse struck the fence, causing a rotational fall where the horse landed on top of her.
  • Mia sustained fatal injuries as a result of the fall.

Procedural Posture:

  • Karan and Stan Eriksson sued Kristi Nunnink in a California superior court (trial court) for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Nunnink.
  • The Erikssons (appellants) appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in a prior decision (Eriksson I), remanding the case for trial.
  • The case returned to the trial court for a bench trial.
  • After the Erikssons presented their case-in-chief, the trial court granted Nunnink's motion for entry of judgment.
  • The Erikssons appealed this judgment to the California Court of Appeal.

Locked

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 liability release signed by a minor, which expressly assumes the risk of a dangerous sporting activity, operate as a defense against subsequent claims for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) brought by the minor's parents after the minor's death during that activity?


Opinions:

Majority - King, J.

Yes, a liability release signed by a minor can be asserted as a defense to the parents' subsequent claims for wrongful death and NIED, effectively negating the defendant's duty of ordinary care. While a decedent cannot waive their heirs' independent causes of action for wrongful death or NIED, the decedent's express assumption of risk can be asserted as a defense. The court reasoned that a defendant's duty of care to the heirs can be no greater than the duty owed to the decedent. By signing the release, Mia negated Nunnink's duty of ordinary care toward her, which in turn limited Nunnink's duty to the Erikssons. Consequently, Nunnink could only be held liable for gross negligence, not ordinary negligence, for both the wrongful death and the bystander NIED claims. This rule is supported by public policy to avoid discouraging the teaching of high-risk sports by preventing an 'end run' around a valid release by third parties.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strength of express assumption of risk agreements in the context of dangerous recreational activities. It clarifies that while wrongful death and bystander NIED claims are legally independent, their viability is fundamentally tied to the duty of care owed by the defendant to the direct victim. By holding that a participant's release lowers the defendant's duty of care for both the participant and their heirs, the ruling prevents third parties from circumventing a valid release. This precedent provides significant protection to coaches, instructors, and organizations in high-risk sports, ensuring that a release from a participant effectively limits liability for ordinary negligence against claims from foreseeable plaintiffs like family members.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Eriksson v. Nunnink (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"