A spectator sits behind the dugout at an amateur ball game, is struck by a foul ball, and sues the club. The club's strongest defence is that the spectator:

a.knew of and accepted an obvious inherent risk
b.owed the club a reciprocal duty of reasonable care
c.was a licensee rather than an invitee that day
d.failed to prove the club carried enough insurance

Explanation

Assumption of risk defeats a negligence claim when the injured person knew of a hazard inherent in an activity and voluntarily accepted it; foul balls reaching the seats are the classic illustration. The licensee-versus-invitee answer misuses premises status, which changes the degree of care owed rather than defeating the claim. How much insurance the club bought is not an element of the plaintiff's case.

This topic, taught in full in the California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide. California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent Study Guide — 2026 Edition — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 · 14-day refund →

Practice all 531 questions free — no signup required.

Own the complete California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 →

Related questions on this topic

Last reviewed: · editorial process

PrepPass team · Verified against California Property & Casualty Insurance License Exam · How we review
Report