Ordway v. Superior Court
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 255, 243 Cal. Rptr. 536, 198 Cal. App. 3d 98 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of reasonable implied assumption of risk remains a viable complete defense after the adoption of comparative fault. It acts as a complete bar to recovery because a plaintiff's voluntary and reasonable decision to encounter a known risk negates the defendant's duty of care regarding the inherent risks of the activity.
Facts:
- Judy Casella was a veteran jockey who had participated in approximately 500 professional horse races without incident.
- On January 3, 1983, Casella was riding in a quarterhorse race at Los Alamitos Race Course.
- During the race, a horse named Over Shadow, owned by Homer Ordway, interfered with another horse, Speedy Ball.
- Speedy Ball stumbled and fell directly in front of Casella's horse.
- As a result, Casella was thrown from her mount, and her horse then fell and rolled over her, causing serious injury.
- The California Horse Racing Board investigated the incident and determined the jockey riding Over Shadow had violated a rule by "crossing over without sufficient clearance, causing interference."
- The jockey of Over Shadow was suspended for five racing days for the rule violation.
Procedural Posture:
- Judy Casella filed a lawsuit in trial court against Homer Ordway (and others) alleging negligence.
- Ordway moved for summary judgment, arguing Casella assumed the risk of her injuries.
- The trial court denied Ordway's motion for summary judgment.
- Ordway sought a writ of mandate from the intermediate appellate court to compel the trial court to grant his motion.
- The intermediate appellate court initially denied the writ application.
- Ordway petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
- The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the intermediate appellate court with directions to issue an alternative writ.
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 reasonable implied assumption of risk remain a viable defense that completely bars a plaintiff's recovery after the adoption of the comparative fault doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Crosby, J.
Yes, reasonable implied assumption of risk remains a viable defense that bars recovery. This doctrine, also known as primary assumption of risk, operates to negate or reduce the defendant's duty of care toward the plaintiff for risks inherent in a particular activity. The court distinguished this from unreasonable implied assumption of risk, which the California Supreme Court in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. merged into the comparative fault system. Unreasonable assumption of risk is a form of contributory negligence, where a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. In contrast, reasonable assumption of risk applies when a plaintiff voluntarily and reasonably chooses to encounter a known danger, particularly in sports or recreational activities. By doing so, the plaintiff is deemed to have relieved the defendant of any duty of care regarding those inherent risks. If there is no duty, there can be no breach, and therefore, no negligence claim can succeed. The court held that the risk of a collision caused by another jockey's carelessness, even if it violates a rule of the sport, is an inherent risk of professional horse racing. The defense does not apply to intentional or reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of ordinary activity expected in the sport.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between primary and secondary assumption of risk in California tort law post-comparative fault. It establishes that primary (reasonable implied) assumption of risk is a complete defense because it goes to the element of duty, while secondary (unreasonable implied) assumption of risk is merely a basis for apportioning fault. This ruling has had a profound impact on personal injury litigation involving sports and recreational activities, providing a powerful defense for organizers, facility owners, and co-participants against negligence claims for injuries arising from risks inherent to the activity. The decision forces courts to analyze the nature of the activity and the defendant's conduct to determine if the injury stemmed from an inherent risk or from conduct so reckless or intentional as to be outside the scope of the plaintiff's consent.
