In the case of Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), the California Supreme Court ruled that a system for comparing how much each person was at fault in a lawsuit about negligence, which was established in the earlier case Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California, did not remove the legal defense known as assumption of risk. This defense applies when someone chooses to take a risk and is aware of the dangers involved.

Background

A person who was hurt filed a lawsuit for injuries to her body. She said the other person stepped on her hand during a touch football game.

Decision

The court identified two types of assumption of risk. Primary assumption of risk means the defendant has no responsibility to protect the plaintiff from a risk that caused harm. Secondary assumption of risk means the defendant has a responsibility to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff knowingly faced a risk caused by the defendant's failure to meet that responsibility.

The court explained that secondary assumption of risk was combined with the comparative negligence system used in the case Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California. However, primary assumption of risk can still be used as a defense in negligence cases. In a touch football game, the defendant's only responsibility to the plaintiff was to avoid being reckless or careless. Since the plaintiff was hurt during normal play, the injury was linked to primary assumption of risk, and she could not seek compensation.