Whelihan

Whelihan v. Espinoza

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 4th 1566·2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 883·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1180·2003 Daily Journal DAR 8594·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6874
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 1, 2003C042145California3,280 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

Plaintiff Lisa Whelihan sued defendant David Espinoza for damages that plaintiff sustained in a jet ski accident. The trial court ruled that the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred plaintiff’s claims and, thus, entered summary judgment in favor of defendant.

On appeal, plaintiff contends the judgment must be reversed because, in her view, assumption of risk does not apply under the circumstances of this case and there are triable issues of material fact regarding defendant’s liability. Plaintiff’s primary argument is that, by enacting statutes addressing the safe operation of jet skis (Harb. & Nav. Code, §§ 655, subd. (a), 655.7, subd. (c)), the Legislature has abrogated application of the common law doctrine of primary assumption of risk to the sport of jet skiing. We disagree.

As we will explain, jet skiing is an active sport involving physical skill and challenges that pose a significant risk of injury to participants in the sport. The absence of the common law doctrine of primary assumption of risk would chill vigorous participation in jet skiing, thereby having a “deleterious effect” on the nature of the sport as a whole. (See Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal.4th…

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.