Yarber v. Oakland Unified School District
6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 437, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1516, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2824 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public entity is immune from liability for injuries sustained during a "hazardous recreational activity" on its property under Government Code section 831.7. Competitive, full-court basketball qualifies as such an activity, and this immunity extends to risks inherent in the sport, such as colliding with obvious obstacles located just outside the playing boundaries.
Facts:
- Anthony Yarber, an experienced basketball player, rented a junior high school gymnasium from the Oakland Unified School District for an unsupervised, after-hours adult basketball game.
- Yarber had previously played in this specific gym and was aware that a concrete wall, located four feet beyond the court's end line, was unpadded.
- The game was a full-court, competitive game with no referees provided or sanctioned by the school district.
- During the game, another player hit Yarber while he was shooting.
- The impact propelled Yarber out of bounds and into the unpadded concrete wall.
- Yarber sustained a concussion, a head injury, and a temporary cervical spinal injury from the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Yarber sued the Oakland Unified School District in superior court (the trial court of first instance).
- An arbitrator awarded Yarber $35,433.37.
- The school district filed for a trial de novo in the superior court.
- After a court trial, the judge awarded Yarber $14,000, finding that the statutory immunity did not apply because the risk was not "inherently part of the game of basketball."
- The Oakland Unified School District, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
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 playing a competitive, full-court basketball game in a gymnasium constitute a "hazardous recreational activity" under Government Code section 831.7, thereby granting the public school district immunity from liability for injuries a player sustained after colliding with an obvious, unpadded wall located just beyond the court's boundary line?
Opinions:
Majority - Rouse, J.
Yes. Playing a competitive basketball game is a "hazardous recreational activity" under Government Code section 831.7, which grants the school district immunity from liability. The court reasons that full-court, competitive basketball is inherently a "body contact sport" that creates a substantial risk of injury, meeting the statute's definition. The court finds that the risks inherent in the game are not confined to the court's boundaries but extend to the immediate surroundings. Foreseeable events, such as a player's momentum carrying them out of bounds or being pushed past the line, make colliding with nearby obstacles an inherent risk of the game. Since the unpadded wall was an obvious hazard, not a hidden trap, the injury arose from an inherent risk of the sport, and the school district is therefore statutorily immune from liability.
Analysis:
This decision broadly interprets the scope of public entity immunity for recreational activities under Government Code section 831.7. It establishes that the "inherent risks" of a sport are not strictly confined to the playing field and can include obvious, static conditions like walls near the court. This precedent makes it more difficult for participants in contact sports to sue public entities for injuries sustained on public property, especially when the injury-causing condition is open and obvious. The ruling shifts more responsibility onto the participants to recognize and assume the risks associated with the environment in which they choose to play.
