Jeanine Spence v. United States

MEMORANDUM

Jeanine Spence appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States in her action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2674 . We affirm.

(1) The district court determined that California’s primary assumption of the risk doctrine barred Spence’s claim. We agree. Under California law, because Spence was injured due to a risk inherent in the sport she was engaging in, she is deemed to have assumed the risk of the injuries she suffered therefrom. See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296, 315-16 , 834 P.2d 696, 708 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 14 (1992) (plurality opinion); Connelly v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, 39 Cal.App.4th 8, 11-12 , 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 855, 857-58 (1995). In that regard, there can be little doubt that road hazards are inherent in the sport of organized, long-distance bike riding. See Moser v. Ratinoff, 105 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1219-21 , 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 198, 203-05 (2003); see also Buchan v. U.S. Cycling Fed’n, Inc., 227 Cal.App.3d 134, 148 , 277 Cal.Rptr. 887, 895 (1991). Spence encountered a road hazard, took a bad fall, and was injured, but her claim is barred under California law.

Moreover, Spence has not shown that the…