 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ochoa v. California State University6/15/1999
termination whether an activity is a "hazardous recreational activity" under the statute is a question of law for the court. (Yarber v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1519.)
In Yarber v. Oakland Unified School Dist., supra, the appellate court held that the statute provided immunity to the defendant school district where the plaintiff suffered injury in an after-hours adult basketball game at a school gymnasium rented from the school by the players. The game was not sanctioned or supervised by the defendant, and no referees officiated. The plaintiff was injured when he was hit in the act of shooting and propelled into an unpadded concrete wall. (4 Cal.App.4th at p. 1518.)
The court found that full-court basketball is a "body contact sport" and therefore a "hazardous recreational activity" under the statute because it
"is an intensely physical game fraught with risk of serious injury. Body blocks, charges, fouls, intentional or not, and accidental collisions with other players are routine and expected. In fact, the rules recognize this and assess penalties for fouls against one's opponent. Since none of the players wear any protection, such bodily contact takes a physical toll . . . ." (Yarber v. Oakland Unified School Dist., supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1519-1520.)
In two more recent decisions, however, courts of appeal have found no immunity for defendant school districts. Plaintiff relies on these decisions. As we shall explain, his reliance is misplaced.
In Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 471, a divided court held that section 831.7 did not immunize a school district where a high school gymnast was injured while practicing under the supervision of his coach in the school gymnasium after school. (Id. at p. 474.) The majority reasoned that, although gymnastics was a hazardous activity within the meaning of the statute (id. at p. 477, fn. 3), the training session in which the plaintiff participated was not "recreational," but rather part of a "school-sponsored extracurricular sports program " and essentially similar to training sessions the coach conducted for his team members at other times. (Id. at pp. 478-479.) In the majority's view, the Legislature did not intend by enacting section 831.7 to immunize school districts from liability for negligent supervision of students in extracurricular sports, a long-established basis for liability in tort law. (31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 477-478.)
In Iverson v. Muroc Unified School Dist. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 218, the court of appeal held that section 831.7 did not immunize a school district from liability for injuries sustained by a junior high school student during a soccer game conducted as part of a physical education class. (Id. at p. 220.) The court distinguished Yarber, supra, because the activity in this case involved a minor student rather than an adult and took place in a required class rather than an after-hours voluntary event. (Yarber v. Oakland Unified School Dist., supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 226-227.) Though the court also found the facts in Acosta, supra, distinguishable (Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 226), it adopted what it characterized as the Acosta court's reasoning that section 831.7 was not intended to apply to "activities that are a part of a school's physical education program" because of the well-established duty of school districts "to supervise the conduct of children on school grounds . . . ." (Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 227.)
In our case, as in Yarber, the plaintiff was an adult taking part in a voluntary activity. Bec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|