 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reeves v. Championship Auto Racing Teams11/21/2003
Plaintiffs Jeannie L. Reeves, as special administrator of the estate of Gregory William Moore, and Richard Paul Moore (collectively Plaintiffs) sued defendants Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. (CART) and California Speedway Corporation (CSC, collectively Defendants) claiming that they were responsible for Gregory's death during a CART-sanctioned race at the CSC track. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered after Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted on the grounds that the action is barred by the doctrines of primary and express assumption of the risk. Plaintiffs claim that these doctrines do not apply because Gregory's death did not result from an inherent risk of the sport of auto racing, because defendants increased the risks inherent in auto racing, and because defendants acted in a grossly negligent and reckless fashion. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Gregory began his racing career in go-carts at the age of 10 and progressed to automobiles at the age of 15. At age 16 he sought and obtained leave of court to sign a release enabling him to participate as a professional driver in Formula 2000 races in the United States (Gregory was a Canadian citizen). A successful racer, Gregory applied to participate in CART-sponsored auto racing events every year beginning in 1993 when he was 17 years old. On October 31, 1999, Gregory competed in the Marlboro 500 at the California Speedway, the 72nd start in his CART racing career, where his success had continued. While exiting turn two in lap 10 of that race, Gregory lost control of his vehicle, which entered a grassy area of the infield, became airborne and ultimately collided with a concrete retaining wall. Gregory died as a result of this crash. Richard was Gregory's manager and was present at the time of the crash.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 30, 2000, against Defendants and others not party to this appeal. After several demurrers, they filed their operative third amended complaint alleging five causes of action for breach of duty, wanton and reckless misconduct, breach of implied contract (against CART only), wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants thereafter filed motions for summary judgment, or in the alternative for summary adjudication, claiming that each of Plaintiffs' causes of action was barred by primary and express assumption of the risk. The trial court apparently allowed, over Defendants' objection, the parties to file supplemental briefs and additional evidence, and the parties each objected to the others' evidence prior to the hearing on August 21, 2002. After taking the motions under submission, the trial court issued a ruling on September 5, 2002, granting summary judgment to both Defendants on the grounds (1) that Gregory's injury resulted from a risk inherent in the sport of auto racing, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk thus barring the action, (2) that Defendants' failure to provide features that would have improved safety did not rise to the level of reckless or wanton misconduct, (3) that express assumption of the risk through executed releases also barred the action, and (4) that Plaintiffs had conceded with respect to their cause of action for breach of implied contract. Judgment was entered for Defendants on October 4, 2002. This appeal followed.
Discussion
A. Standard of Review
The purpose of summary judgment "is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. [Citation.]" (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 844
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|