76 Cal.App.5th 1003
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Nicholas Brown, a junior-varsity Union Mine High School football player, signed district athletic forms and his father signed a written Release of Liability and Assumption of Risk (plus concussion information) before the 2015 season.
- On August 28, 2015, Brown played most of a game, left the field late in the fourth quarter, collapsed 5–10 minutes later, and was diagnosed with a large left subdural hematoma requiring emergency surgery.
- The signed release expressly waived claims against El Dorado Union High School District (EDUHSD) for injuries, including injuries arising from alleged failures to coach, supervise, diagnose, or treat, and parental signature bound the minor.
- Coaches had received concussion training consistent with CIF materials; CIF guidance recommended (but did not mandate) physician presence at games; a chiropractor and an EMT were at the game but no MD.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the District on (1) express assumption/release and (2) primary assumption of risk; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the release barred Brown’s negligence claims and that Brown failed to raise a triable issue of gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court acceptance of District’s separate statement | District’s separate statement combined facts and obscured which evidence supported which fact, impairing Brown’s ability to respond | Separate statement substantially complied; trial court has discretion to accept imperfect form | No abuse of discretion; substantial compliance was sufficient |
| Evidentiary rulings (sustained objections to Brown’s exhibits/experts) | Court improperly sustained objections and excluded key evidence and expert opinions | Many objections were supported; Brown failed to point to specific rulings/record cites; arguments inadequately developed | Arguments deemed forfeited/waived for lack of specificity; appellate court declined to review |
| Enforceability and scope of release (covers negligence, coaches, diagnosis/treatment, and brain injury) | Release is too general, does not specifically reference coach negligence or emergency/medical failures; Brown/parents lacked particular knowledge of catastrophic brain-injury risk | Release explicitly mentions coaching/training/supervision and failure to render emergency/medical services and assumes all risks, including concussion/brain injury | Release is clear and unambiguous, covers negligent acts by District/employees and the type of injury suffered; it bars ordinary negligence claims |
| Whether gross negligence triable issue defeats the release | Coaches failed to monitor/remove Brown; inadequate training/education of players/parents; absence of a physician and alleged delay in ambulance created gross negligence | Coaches followed CIF-consistent training, monitored players, provided concussion education, and on-site EMT/chiropractor responded promptly; conduct not an extreme departure | No triable issue of gross negligence shown; evidence insufficient to overcome the release; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Eriksson v. Nunnink, 233 Cal.App.4th 708 (2015) (parental release can bind a minor)
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (2003) (sports context duty, primary assumption of risk, and when conduct may be reckless)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (2001) (summary judgment evidence must be viewed favorably to the opponent)
- Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 237 Cal.App.4th 546 (2015) (summary judgment review principles—liberal construction for opponent)
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981) (definition of gross negligence as conscious indifference)
- Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 60 Cal.2d 92 (1963) (public interest limits on exculpatory agreements)
- Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica, 104 Cal.App.4th 1351 (2002) (exculpatory agreements in recreational sports context are generally enforceable)
- Coates v. Newhall Land & Farming, 191 Cal.App.3d 1 (1987) (assumption of risk and express waivers eliminate remedy for future negligence)
- Hass v. RhodyCo Productions, 26 Cal.App.5th 11 (2018) (distinguishable: gross negligence triable when organizer materially deviates from emergency plan and leaves finish line without promised medical resources)
- Arista v. County of Riverside, 29 Cal.App.5th 1051 (2018) (distinguishable facts where alleged want of even scant care in search/rescue raised gross negligence issue)