Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 834 P.2d 696 (Cal. 1992)
Knight v. Jewett is the California Supreme Court's seminal modern statement on assumption of risk, especially in recreational and athletic settings.
In an informal touch football game, does a co-participant owe a duty of ordinary care to avoid causing injury, or is the plaintiff's negligence claim barred under primary assumption of risk absent reckless or intentional conduct that increases the risks beyond those inherent in the sport? Relatedly, how does comparative negligence interact with assumption of risk after Li v. Yellow Cab?
Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, courts determine as a matter of law that a defendant owes no duty to protect a plaintiff from risks inherent in a sport or recreational activity. Co-participants in active sports therefore owe a limited duty: they must not intentionally injure others and must not engage in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport. When primary assumption of risk applies, the absence of duty bars a negligence claim regardless of the plaintiff's conduct. By contrast, secondary assumption of risk describes situations in which the defendant owes a duty of care but the plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk created by the defendant's breach; in such cases, the plaintiff's conduct is considered under comparative negligence principles and may reduce, but does not bar, recovery.
Primary assumption of risk barred Knight's negligence claim because the risk of collision and accidental contact is inherent in touch football and Jewett's conduct was not shown to be reckless or intentional. Accordingly, Jewett owed no duty to protect Knight from the inherent risks of the game, and summary judgment for Jewett was proper on the negligence claim. The assault and battery claim also failed for lack of evidence of intent to cause harmful or offensive contact.
Knight anchors modern California tort doctrine on sports and recreational injuries. It reclassifies many assumption-of-risk disputes as threshold duty questions and sets the co-participant standard—no liability for ordinary negligence, only for reckless or intentional misconduct that increases risks beyond those inherent in the sport. The case is essential for law students analyzing duty, assumption of risk, and comparative negligence, and it influences subsequent California decisions involving coaches, instructors, and varied recreational activities (e.g., skiing, baseball, surfing). Knight also exemplifies how policy concerns—preserving the social value of vigorous sports participation—shape tort duties.