247 Cal. App. 4th 594
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- 14-year-old Uriel Jimenez was injured at a middle school while classmates practiced break dancing in a teacher’s classroom; some students performed gymnastic "flips."
- Teacher Alan Hall permitted the students to use his classroom before school, left the room at times without supervision, and did not instruct students about flips.
- Assistant Principal Gutierrez had previously seen students flipping on campus, told them to stop on at least one occasion, and testified school policy required continuous supervision or a stop of activity when a teacher left.
- Jimenez had limited experience and was hesitant about flipping; classmates either encouraged or physically induced him to attempt a flip and he was seriously injured.
- Plaintiff sued the Roseville City School District for negligence and negligent supervision; the trial court granted summary judgment for the District on primary assumption-of-risk grounds.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, finding triable issues on (1) negligent supervision (failure to supervise/enforce rules) and (2) whether the District’s conduct increased the inherent risks of ordinary break dancing by permitting/allowing flips.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of risk bars recovery because flips are an inherent risk of break dancing | Jimenez: flips are not integral to ordinary break dancing; expert evidence shows flips are advanced, not inherent, so primary assumption doesn't bar suit | District: break dancing can involve flips; plaintiff voluntarily participated in activity with inherent risks, so no duty for those risks | Reversed: triable issue exists whether flips are inherent; expert evidence supports that flips are not part of ordinary break dancing, so primary assumption may not apply |
| Whether the District had a duty and breached it by negligent supervision or by increasing inherent risk | Jimenez: teacher left students unsupervised contrary to policy and administrators failed to disseminate/enforce no-flip rule, proximately causing injury | District: school owed no duty to protect from inherent risks of the activity; summary judgment appropriate | Reversed: jury could find the District breached supervisory duties (Dailey line) or increased risks by failing to enforce no-flip rules; issues for jury (secondary assumption/comparative negligence may apply) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 2 Cal.3d 741 (1970) (schools have duty to supervise students and can be liable for lack or ineffectiveness of supervision)
- Lilley v. Elk Grove Unified School Dist., 68 Cal.App.4th 939 (1998) (primary assumption of risk applies to inherently risky school sports; section 44807 does not abolish primary assumption)
- Lucas v. Fresno Unified School Dist., 14 Cal.App.4th 866 (1993) (negligent supervision can give rise to liability despite participant's knowledge of forbidden conduct; secondary assumption applies)
- Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist., 155 Cal.App.4th 821 (2007) (instructors can owe a duty in noninherently dangerous training contexts; policy supports supervision and training)
- Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co., 94 Cal.App.4th 354 (2001) (distinguishing ordinary activity from altered/risk-enhanced versions; increased risk can create duty)
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (2003) (expert evidence may be required to determine inherent risks of an activity)
- Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 55 Cal.4th 1148 (2012) (trial judges may consult evidence and expert material when deciding inherent-risk questions)
- Gregory v. Cott, 59 Cal.4th 996 (2014) (distinguishing primary and secondary assumption of risk; primary is a duty question)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment standard and de novo review of grant)