Childs

Childs v. County of Santa Barbara

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 64·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 82·2004 Daily Journal DAR 758·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 823·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 573
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 2004B162350California3,751 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

Tatiana Childs fell and suffered serious injury when she rode a small “razor” scooter over an uplifted section of sidewalk on a residential street in the County of Santa Barbara. She sued the County contending that the sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court ruled that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred liability because, as a matter of law, riding a scooter is a recreational activity, and falling is an inherent risk of the activity. She appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of the County. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) We conclude that riding a scooter is covered by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk only when the activity involves an element of danger, requires physical exertion and skill, and includes a competitive challenge. A triable issue exists in this case regarding whether Tatiana was riding her scooter in such a manner. Accordingly, we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

While riding a scooter on a sidewalk in a residential neighborhood in the County of Santa Barbara, 11-year-old Tatiana Childs fell and suffered injuries. Acting through her guardian ad litem, Alexander Childs, Tatiana…

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.