How did California get here?
Before 1975, any fault on your part could bar your whole case. That was contributory negligence. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 replaced it with comparative fault. Now your share of fault only reduces your recovery. If a jury values your damages at $500,000 and finds you 25% at fault, you recover $375,000.
That left a question. What happens when you knowingly take on a risk? In Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, the California Supreme Court split the answer in two.
- Primary assumption of risk: the defendant had no legal duty to protect you from that particular risk. Your case is barred.
- Secondary assumption of risk: the defendant did owe you a duty and breached it, and you chose to face the danger anyway. That goes into comparative fault. Your recovery is reduced, not erased.
The focus is on the activity and the parties’ roles in it, not on whether you personally acted reasonably. Later decisions confirmed Knight as the governing rule. (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990; Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482.)
What counts as an inherent risk?
An inherent risk is one you cannot remove without changing the nature of the activity. Courts reason that making participants pay for ordinary careless play would chill vigorous participation. Examples from the California Supreme Court:
- Touch football. A player knocked the plaintiff down and stepped on her hand. Her little finger was later amputated. No recovery. (Knight.)
- Waterskiing. A barefoot skier being towed backward hit an overhanging tree branch. The boat driver was not liable for ordinary negligence. (Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal.4th 339.)
- Skiing. One skier may not sue another for simple carelessness. (Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1063.)
- Golf. Being hit by a carelessly struck ball is an inherent risk. Recklessness is judged on facts like the golfer’s skill, what blocked the view and where others stood. (Shin v. Ahn.)
- Baseball. Even an intentional pitch at a batter was treated as an inherent risk of the game. (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148.)
The doctrine reaches beyond sports. It applies to recreational activities, including amusement park rides like bumper cars. (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148.) For more, see amusement park accidents, our article on theme park ride injuries, and our article on boating accidents.
When can you still recover?
- Intentional harm or recklessness. A co-participant is liable for intentionally injuring you or for conduct so reckless it is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity. (Knight, 3 Cal.4th at p. 320.)
- Increased risk. Even where the doctrine applies, a defendant must use care not to make the activity more dangerous than it inherently is. (Knight, at pp. 315–316.) Operators must also avoid unreasonably increasing the risks of their facilities, rides and events.
- The risk was not inherent. A seventh grader hit in the face by another student’s club in a golf class could proceed. Being struck by a club is not an inherent risk of golf. (Hemady v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 566.)
- You did not choose the activity. In Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 64, the trial court refused a primary assumption of risk instruction because the student was hurt in a mandatory physical education class. The Court of Appeal found no error.
- Ordinary hazards outside the game. A dangerous condition on property, like a broken floor at a gym or a hidden hazard on a trail, can still support a premises liability claim.
Can a coach or instructor be liable?
Yes, but the standard is demanding. Instructors must be able to push students, or no one improves. So a coach who asks too much of a student is generally liable only for intentional harm or reckless conduct totally outside the range of ordinary teaching. (Kahn, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1011.) In Kahn, a 14-year-old novice swimmer broke her neck on a shallow-water racing dive. The court found enough evidence of recklessness to go to trial.
New since 2023: in Greener v. M. Phelps, Inc. (Dec. 31, 2024, D082588) [certified for publication], a Brazilian jiu jitsu student suffered a fractured neck and spinal cord injury when his instructor ran a series of moves on him during sparring. The jury was instructed that the instructor could be liable for unreasonably increasing the risks beyond those inherent in the sport. It returned a $46.475 million verdict. The Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review on June 2, 2025.
Not every case comes out that way. In Gee v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (Dec. 24, 2024, certified for publication Jan. 10, 2025, B327691), the widow of a former USC linebacker claimed repeated head hits caused CTE, a brain disease. The court held the doctrine applied, and a defense verdict stood. If you or a family member suffered a head injury in sports, see our brain injuries page.
Does a signed waiver end your case?
Not always. Most gyms, ski areas, races and adventure businesses require a release. California courts usually enforce releases of ordinary negligence in recreation when the language is clear. But there are firm limits.
- Gross negligence. A release of liability for future gross negligence is unenforceable. Gross negligence means an extreme departure from ordinary care. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747.)
- Violating a safety law. Civil Code section 1668 voids contracts that exempt anyone from responsibility for “violation of law, whether willful or negligent.” In Whitehead v. City of Oakland (2025) 17 Cal.5th 735, a cyclist on a charity training ride hit a deep pothole and suffered a traumatic brain injury. The Supreme Court held his release could not relieve the city of liability for negligently violating its statutory duty to maintain safe roads.
- Willful injury. In New England Country Foods, LLC v. VanLaw Food Products, Inc. (Apr. 24, 2025, S282968), the Supreme Court held that contracts cannot limit liability for willful injury, in whole or in part.
Pleading matters. In Diamond v. Schweitzer (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 866, a man hurt in a speedway pit area lost on summary judgment. The release covered ordinary negligence, and he had not properly pleaded or argued gross negligence in time. If there is a waiver, your lawyer should plan around it from day one.
What’s new since 2023
- Nigel B. (2023): the doctrine did not reach a mandatory school class.
- Greener (2024): $46.475 million instructor verdict affirmed; review denied June 2025.
- Gee (2025 publication): the doctrine applied to a college football CTE claim.
- Whitehead (2025): releases cannot excuse a public entity’s negligent breach of a statutory safety duty.
- New England Country Foods (2025): no contractual limits on liability for willful injury.
- Diamond (2025): a release was enforced where gross negligence was not pleaded.
What to do if you were hurt in sports or recreation
- Get medical care and keep the records.
- Ask for a copy of anything you signed, including online waivers.
- Photograph the equipment, surface or course. Keep broken gear.
- Get names of witnesses, instructors and staff.
- Watch the deadlines. Deadlines vary by state and by case, and claims against a government agency can have much shorter deadlines. Contact a lawyer promptly. See government entity claims.
Serious injuries deserve a careful look. See our catastrophic injuries page.
Frequently asked questions
Can I sue if I was hurt playing a sport in California?
Sometimes. You generally cannot recover for the normal risks of the sport. You can if someone hurt you intentionally, acted recklessly, or increased the risks beyond what the sport normally involves.
Does signing a gym or activity waiver mean I cannot sue?
No. A waiver can bar claims for ordinary negligence, but it cannot release gross negligence, willful injury, or a negligent violation of a statute that protects public safety.
Can I sue a coach or trainer for my injury?
Yes, in some cases. You generally must show reckless or intentional conduct, or that the instructor unreasonably increased the risks, such as using unsafe techniques or equipment.
Who decides whether assumption of risk applies?
The judge decides whether the defendant owed a duty. That is a legal question, and it is often decided on summary judgment before trial. (Kahn, 31 Cal.4th 990.)