A spectator at a baseball game is struck by a foul ball and sues the stadium. Under California law, which defense is the stadium MOST LIKELY to assert?
Explanation
Under Knight v. Jewett, California recognizes 'primary assumption of risk' as a complete defense when a plaintiff voluntarily participates in (or attends) an activity with risks that are INHERENT to that activity. Being hit by a foul ball is an inherent risk of attending a baseball game (the 'Baseball Rule'), so the stadium owes no duty to protect spectators from that risk beyond reasonable measures. California abolished CONTRIBUTORY negligence as a complete bar in 1975 (Li v. Yellow Cab).
Law Reference: Assumption of risk doctrine (Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992))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
- A California resident slips and breaks her arm on June 1, 2024. She does not file her personal injury lawsuit until July 1, 2026. Under California's statute of limitations, the lawsuit will MOST LIKELY be:
- Which of the following BEST describes the difference between tort liability and contract liability?
- A bar owner intentionally punches a customer during an argument and is sued for battery. The bar owner submits the claim under his CGL policy. The insurer will MOST LIKELY:
- The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances is the legal definition of:
- To win a negligence claim, an injured party generally must prove all of the following EXCEPT:
- Liability that is imposed on a party regardless of fault or negligence, such as for abnormally dangerous activities, is called:
Last reviewed: · editorial process