Bush

Bush v. Parents Without Partners

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 4th 322·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 751·21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178·93 Daily Journal DAR 9318·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5552
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 1993C014019California6,191 words

Opinion

Opinion

Plaintiff Dorothy Bush sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell while dancing. She sued the organization sponsoring the dance and the public agency owning the dance hall. The trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiff based upon her assumption of the risk. We shall reverse.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury against the local and international chapters of Parents Without Partners (collectively, Parents Without Partners), sponsors of the event, and the Chico Area Recreation and Park District (District), owner of the Melody Dance Hall where the incident occurred. Plaintiff alleged general negligence and premises liability in her complaint. Parents Without Partners cross-complained against the District for indemnity.

The District and Parents Without Partners jointly moved for summary judgment based on the doctrine of reasonable implied assumption of risk.

The following facts are taken from the defendants' separate statements of undisputed facts which plaintiff agreed were not in dispute:

Before her accident, plaintiff attended at least 36 dances sponsored by Parents Without Partners at the Melody Dance Hall in the past 7…

Lead Opinion

Sparks, J.

Plaintiff Dorothy Bush sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell while dancing. She sued the organization sponsoring the *325 dance and the public agency owning the dance hall. The trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiff based upon her assumption of the risk. We shall reverse.

Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury against the local and international chapters of Parents Without Partners (collectively, Parents Without Partners), sponsors of the event, and the Chico Area Recreation and Park District (District), owner of the Melody Dance Hall where the incident occurred. Plaintiff alleged general negligence and premises liability in her complaint. Parents Without Partners cross-complained against the District for indemnity.

The District and Parents Without Partners jointly moved for summary judgment based on the doctrine of reasonable implied assumption of risk.

The following facts are taken from the defendants’ separate statements of undisputed facts which plaintiff agreed were not in dispute:

Before her accident, plaintiff attended at least 36 dances sponsored by Parents Without Partners at the Melody…

Dissenting Opinion

Nicholson, J.

I respectfully dissent.

In my opinion, the type of activity in which the plaintiff engaged falls within the range of activities covered by the analysis in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 ]. While Knight involves an activity traditionally considered a “sport,” the distinction between what is or is not a sport is unclear. In any event, the determination of whether primary assumption of risk applies does not hinge on whether the particular activity was a sport. “[T]he question of the existence and scope of a defendant’s duty of care is a legal question which depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties’ general relationship to the activity, . . .” (Id. at p. 313, first italics in original, latter italics added.)

The activity in which the plaintiff voluntarily engaged here was participation in a dance in which a slippery substance is spread on the floor. A substance was commonly spread on the floor at the dances intentionally to *331 make the floor slippery and thereby enhance the activity. On and off through the evening of each dance, the floor was swept because, evidently, the first sweeping did not remove…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.