PA Supreme Court determines colleges owe a duty to provide medical care to student-athletes and releases are valid for stopping claims by student athletes.

Court also sets forth requirements for a release to be valid under Pennsylvania law.

Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 215 A.3d 3, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 4615

State: Pennsylvania, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Plaintiffs: , Augustus Feleccia and Justin T. Resch

Defendant: Lackawanna College a/k/a Lackawanna Junior College, AD Mecca, Coach Duda, Coach Reiss, Coach Lamagna and Coyne and Bonisese

Plaintiff Claims: negligence, including negligence per se. The complaint also sought punitive damages, alleging appellants acted “willfully, wantonly and/or recklessly

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: For the Plaintiff’s

Year: 2017

Summary

In this decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviews requirements for how a release must be written in Pennsylvania law to be valid. Pennsylvania has no definition of gross negligence, but a release is still not valid to stop a gross negligence claim.

Finally, if you create a duty or make a promise that people rely on to their detriment or injury you are liable. Here a college is liable to its student-athletes who were injured during practice for not having certified athlete trainers on the field.

Facts

Lackawanna had customarily employed two athletic trainers to support the football program.1 However, both athletic trainers resigned in the summer of 2009 and AD Mecca advertised two job openings for the position of athletic trainer. AD Mecca received applications from Coyne and Bonisese, recent graduates of Marywood University who had obtained Bachelor of Science degrees in Athletic Training. AD Mecca conducted telephone interviews with Coyne and Bonisese for the open athletic trainer positions at Lackawanna.

At the time she applied and interviewed for the Lackawanna position, Coyne had not yet passed the athletic trainer certification exam, which she took for the first time on July 25, 2009, and was therefore not licensed by the Board. Bonisese was also not licensed, having failed the exam on her first attempt, and still awaiting the results of her second attempt when she applied and interviewed for the Lackawanna position. Nevertheless, Lackawanna hired both Coyne and Bonisese in August 2009 with the expectation they would serve as athletic trainers, pending receipt of their exam results, and both women signed “athletic trainer” job descriptions. Id. After starting their employment at Lackawanna, Coyne and Bonisese both learned they did not pass the athletic trainer certification exam. Coyne informed AD Mecca of her test results, and AD Mecca also learned Bonisese had failed her second attempt at certification.

AD Mecca retitled the positions held by Coyne and Bonisese from “athletic trainers” to “first responders.” Id. at 1204. AD Mecca notified Coyne and Bonisese via email and written correspondence that due to their failure to pass the certification exam, they would function as “first responders” instead of “athletic trainers.” However, neither Coyne nor Bonisese executed [*7] new job descriptions, despite never achieving the credentials included in the athletic trainer job descriptions they did sign. Appellants were also aware the qualifications of their new hires was called into question by their college professors and clinic supervisors. See Id. More specifically, Shelby Yeager, a professor for Coyne and Bonisese during their undergraduate studies, communicated to AD Mecca her opinion that Coyne and Bonisese were impermissibly providing athletic training services in September 2009. Professor Yeager was aware Lackawanna did not have any full-time athletic trainers on staff2 and noted Coyne and Bonisese, as recent graduates, were inexperienced and did not have the required Board license. Professor Yeager stated that Coyne in particular was “ill-equipped to handle the rigors of a contact sport (like football) as an athletic trainer on her own regardless of whether she managed to pass [the certification] exam and obtain her state license.” Id., quoting Affidavit of Shelby Yeager. With regard to Bonisese, Bryan Laurie, who supervised her as a student, rated her performance as “below average/poor” and provided his assessment that she was not qualified to act as an athletic trainer in March of 2010. Id., citing Affidavit of Bryan Laurie.

Appellee Resch started playing football at the age of six, and continued playing through high school. Id. at 1204-05. Upon graduating from high school in 2008, Resch was accepted at Lackawanna and, hoping to continue playing football, met with Coach Duda prior to arriving for classes. Resch tried out for the Lackawanna football team in the fall of 2008. Resch not only failed to make the roster, but was also placed on academic probation, so he was ineligible to play football in the spring of 2009.

Appellee Feleccia also began playing football as a child at the age of ten, and played through high school. Feleccia was recruited by Coach Duda to play football at Lackawanna. See id. Feleccia did not make the team in the fall of 2008, but practiced with them during that time. During a scrimmage in the fall of 2008, Feleccia tore the labrum in his left shoulder, which was surgically repaired. Feleccia was also placed on academic probation after the fall 2008 semester and temporarily withdrew from Lackawanna. See id.

In mid-January 2010, Resch and Feleccia returned to Lackawanna for the spring semester with the aspiration to make the football team. Id. Lackawanna required appellees to fill out and sign various documents in a “participation packet” before playing with the team, including a “Waiver of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreement” (the Waiver) and a form including an “Information/Emergency Release Consent” (the Consent).

On March 29, 2010, appellees participated in the first day of spring contact football practice. The team engaged in a variation of the tackling drill known as the “Oklahoma Drill.” Appellees had previously participated in the Oklahoma Drill, or a variation of it, either in high school or at Lackawanna football practices, and were aware the drill would take place during practices. While participating in the drill, both Resch and Feleccia suffered injuries. Resch attempted to make a tackle and suffered a T-7 vertebral fracture. Resch was unable to get up off the ground and Coyne attended to him before he was transported to the hospital in an ambulance. See Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1207. Notwithstanding Resch’s injury, the Lackawanna football team continued practicing and running the Oklahoma Drill. Later that same day, Feleccia was injured while attempting to make his first tackle, experiencing a “stinger” in his right shoulder, i.e., experiencing numbness, tingling and a loss of mobility in his right shoulder. Id. Bonisese attended Feleccia and cleared him to continue practice “if he was feeling better.” Id. Feleccia returned to practice and then suffered a traumatic brachial plexus avulsion while making a tackle with his right shoulder. Id.

The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed based by the trial court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants. The Plaintiff’s then appealed that dismissal of their complaint to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (intermediate appellate court). The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court on several issues. The defendants then filed this appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was based on two issues.

a. Is a Pennsylvania college required to have qualified medical personnel present at intercollegiate athletic events to satisfy a duty of care to the college’s student-athletes?

b. Is an exculpatory clause releasing “any and all liability” signed in connection with participation in intercollegiate football enforceable as to negligence?

That means the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will only look at the two issues it has decided that need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court and nothing else.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

What is interesting are two things.

First, the court allowed a release to be used by a college to prevent lawsuits when a student is injured during practice for an NCAA sport. The analysis did not center around the relationship between the student athlete and the university; it centered around the fact the University had told student athletes they would have trainers and did not.

Sort of a detrimental reliance claim: I relied upon your statements that then injured me. Or as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §323

One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other’s person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if

(a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or

(b) the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.

The court found the College had created an expectation, relied upon by the students, that there would be athletic trainers available on the field during practice. Because the two trainers on the field were not certified, and possibly, to some extent, the actions of the school in changing the requirements or the people on the field to help the athletes from trainers to medical responders, the court found a legal theory where the college could be liable.

The second issue is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interpretation of Pennsylvania release law. Under Pennsylvania law “Accordingly, exculpatory contracts are valid and enforceable only when “certain criteria are met.” To meet that criteria the court restated four requirements under Pennsylvania law for a release to be valid.

(1) the contract language must be construed strictly, since exculpatory language is not favored by the law; 2) the contract must state the intention of the parties with the greatest particularity, beyond doubt by express stipulation, and no inference from words of general import can establish the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party invoking protection under the clause).

The first issue the court reviewed in determining if the release was valid was the lack of the word negligence in the release. If the release failed to specifically state the release stopped claims for the defendants negligence was it enforceable. The court said the release was valid even if it did not include the word negligence in its wording. To be valid the release must spell “…out the intention of the parties with particularity” and show “the intent to release [appellants] from liability by express stipulation.”

That means the court must review the party’s intentions in creating the agreement between them. Furthermore, the injuries suffered by the plaintiff must be encompassed within the terms of the release. That does not mean a specific list of injuries, just a general idea that the injury suffered was within the contemplation of the release.

The court then looked at ordinary negligence and gross negligence under Pennsylvania law. The court first stated there is a difference between ordinary, gross and reckless conduct or negligence.

However, the court avoided the issue of defining gross negligence or the issue of whether gross negligence was valid in this claim. The court stated, “([A]s gross negligence is not implicated in the instant matter, we leave for another day the question of whether a release for gross negligence can withstand a public policy challenge.”

The court then looked at how both parties in their briefs defined the actions of the defendant college. The court then reviewed public policy requirements to void a release under Pennsylvania law.

A determination that a contract is unenforceable because it contravenes public policy “requires a showing of overriding public policy from legal precedents, governmental practice, or obvious ethical or moral standards. “It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring. . . .”

However, the court then stated that pre-injury contracts, releases, are unenforceable when the liability of the defendant arises from recklessness. So the court refused to define gross negligence and used an old definition of recklessness. The Court then held that recklessness, not necessarily defined in a definition of negligence, could void a release.

Again, the Court repeated that Pennsylvania had not defined gross negligence in a civil liability setting.

Thus, although we have not previously settled on a definitive meaning of the term “gross negligence” as compared to “ordinary negligence” in the civil context, we have recognized there is a difference between the two concepts, and they are distinguished by the degree of deviation from the standard of care.

The court did then define gross negligence but did so in a way that did not set the definition in stone under Pennsylvania law. It just pulled definitions of gross negligence from lower courts and did not adopt any of them as the definition.

…in essence, gross negligence is merely negligence with a vituperative epithet. It constitutes conduct more egregious than ordinary negligence but does not rise to the level of intentional indifference to the consequences of one’s acts. It may also be deemed to be a lack of slight diligence or care comprising a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and the consequences to another party. The term has also been found to mean a form of negligence where the facts support substantially more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference. The behavior of the defendant must be flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary standard of care.

Gross negligence has thus been consistently recognized as involving something more than ordinary negligence, and is generally described as “want of even scant care” and an “extreme departure” from ordinary care.

As we have seen, gross negligence does not rise to the level of the intentional indifference or “conscious disregard” of risks that defines recklessness, but it is defined as an “extreme departure” from the standard of care, beyond that required to establish ordinary negligence, and is the failure to exercise even “scant care.

The court then repeated that the release would not stop a claim for gross negligence.

Moreover, although the Waiver bars’ recovery for appellees’ damages arising from ordinary negligence, we hold the Waiver does not bar recovery for damages arising from gross negligence or recklessness, and there remain factual questions regarding whether appellants’ conduct constituted gross negligence or recklessness.

Pennsylvania joins the list of states that a release will not stop a claim for gross negligence. A gross negligence claim must be decided by the trier of fact, the jury, in these cases.

So Now What?

First, we have definitive guidelines from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on how the court wants a release to be written. Second, we know that Pennsylvania joins the majority of states where a release cannot stop a claim for gross negligence.

We also know that recklessness is enough to void a release as well as gross negligence. However, terms we will result in battles by both sides to use the definitions they want applied to the facts of each particular case.

Finally, as in most states, if you make a promise to someone, and they rely on that promise to their detriment, you are going to write a check!

It is an interesting opinion purely from the allowance of the student-athletes to sue their college. However, the reasoning behind how a release must be written in Pennsylvania has great value.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2020 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

By Recreation Law    Rec-law@recreation-law.com    James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,


Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 215 A.3d 3, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 4615

Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 215 A.3d 3, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 4615

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

December 5, 2018, Argued; August 20, 2019, Decided

No. 75 MAP 2017

Reporter

215 A.3d 3 *; 2019 Pa. LEXIS 4615 **

AUGUSTUS FELECCIA AND JUSTIN T. RESCH, Appellees v. LACKAWANNA COLLEGE A/K/A LACKAWANNA JUNIOR COLLEGE, KIM A. MECCA, MARK D. DUDA, WILLIAM E. REISS, DANIEL A. LAMAGNA, KAITLIN M. COYNE AND ALEXIS D. BONISESE, Appellants

Subsequent History: As corrected August 26, 2019.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court at No. 385 MDA 2016 dated February 24, 2017, reconsideration denied April 26, 2017, Reversing the Judgment of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, at No. 12-CV-1960 entered February 2, 2016 and Remanding for trial.

Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 2017 PA Super 44, 156 A.3d 1200, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117 (Pa. Super. Ct., Feb. 24, 2017)

Counsel: For Pennsylvania Association for Justice, Amicus Curiae: Barbara Axelrod, Esq., Beasley Firm, L.L.C. (The).

For Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae: Christopher D. Carusone, Esq., Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC.

For National Athletic Trainers’ Association & PA Athletic Trainers’ Society, Inc., Amicus Curiae: Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq.

For Lackawanna College a/k/a Lackawanna Junior College, Kim A. Mecca, Mark D. Duda, William E.Reiss, Daniel A.Lamagna, Kaitlin M.Coyne & Alexis D.Bonisese, Appellants: Steven Jay Engelmyer, Esq., Kleinbard LLC.

For Lackawanna College a/k/a Lackawanna Junior College, Kim A. Mecca, Mark D. Duda, William E.Reiss, Daniel A.Lamagna, Kaitlin M.Coyne & Alexis D.Bonisese, Appellants: Eric Joseph Schreiner, Esq., Kleinbard LLC.

For Lackawanna College a/k/a Lackawanna Junior College, Kim A. Mecca, Mark D. Duda, William E.Reiss, Daniel [**2]  A.Lamagna, Kaitlin M.Coyne & Alexis D.Bonisese, Appellants: Joshua John Voss, Esq., Kleinbard LLC.

For Augustus Feleccia and Justin T. Resch, Appellee: Andrew P. Motel, Esq., Law Offices of Andrew P. Motel, L.L.C. (The).

For Augustus Feleccia and Justin T. Resch, Appellee: Robert A. Saraceni Jr., Esq.

For Augustus Feleccia and Justin T. Resch, Appellee: Daniel Joel Siegel, Esq., Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, L.L.C.

Judges: SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. Justices Baer, Todd, Donohue and Mundy join the opinion. Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Wecht file concurring and dissenting opinions.

Opinion by: DOUGHERTY

Opinion

 [*5]  JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

In this discretionary appeal arising from the dismissal of personal injury claims on summary judgment, we consider whether the Superior Court erred in 1) finding a duty of care and 2) holding a pre-injury waiver signed by student athletes injured while playing football was not enforceable against claims of negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness. After careful review, we affirm the Superior Court’s order only to the extent it reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on the  [*6]  claims of gross negligence and recklessness, and we remand [**3]  to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

Appellees, Augustus Feleccia and Justin T. Resch, (collectively, appellees) were student athletes who played football at Lackawanna Junior College (Lackawanna), a non-profit junior college. See Complaint at ¶¶ 29, 30. At all times relevant to this matter, the following individuals were employed by Lackawanna and involved in its football program: (1) Kim A. Mecca, the Athletic Director for Lackawanna College who oversaw all of Lackawanna’s athletic programs, including the football program (AD Mecca); (2) Mark D. Duda, the head coach (Coach Duda); (3) William E. Reiss, an assistant and linebacker coach (Coach Reiss); (4) Daniel A. Lamagna, an assistant and quarterback coach (Coach Lamagna); (5) Kaitlin M. Coyne, hired to be an athletic trainer (Coyne); and (6) Alexis D. Bonisese, hired to be an athletic trainer (Bonisese) (collectively with Lackawanna referred to as appellants). Id. at ¶¶31-34, 40, 41, 43, 44.

Lackawanna had customarily employed two athletic trainers to support the football program.1 However, both athletic trainers resigned in the summer of 2009 and AD Mecca advertised two job openings for the position [**4]  of athletic trainer. AD Mecca received applications from Coyne and Bonisese, recent graduates of Marywood University who had obtained Bachelor of Science degrees in Athletic Training. AD Mecca conducted telephone interviews with Coyne and Bonisese for the open athletic trainer positions at Lackawanna. See Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 2017 PA Super 44, 156 A.3d 1200, 1203 (Pa. Super. 2017).

At the time she applied and interviewed for the Lackawanna position, Coyne had not yet passed the athletic trainer certification exam, which she took for the first time on July 25, 2009, and was therefore not licensed by the Board. Bonisese was also not licensed, having failed the exam on her first attempt, and still awaiting the results of her second attempt when she applied and interviewed for the Lackawanna position. Nevertheless, Lackawanna hired both Coyne and Bonisese in August 2009 with the expectation they would serve as athletic trainers, pending receipt of their exam results, and both women signed “athletic trainer” job descriptions. Id. After starting their employment at Lackawanna, Coyne and Bonisese both learned they did not pass the athletic trainer certification exam. Coyne informed AD Mecca of her test results, and AD Mecca also learned Bonisese had failed her second [**5]  attempt at certification. Id. at 1203-04.

AD Mecca retitled the positions held by Coyne and Bonisese from “athletic trainers” to “first responders.” Id. at 1204. AD Mecca notified Coyne and Bonisese via email and written correspondence that due to their failure to pass the certification exam, they would function as “first responders” instead of “athletic trainers.” However, neither Coyne nor Bonisese executed  [*7]  new job descriptions, despite never achieving the credentials included in the athletic trainer job descriptions they did sign. Appellants were also aware the qualifications of their new hires was called into question by their college professors and clinic supervisors. See Id. More specifically, Shelby Yeager, a professor for Coyne and Bonisese during their undergraduate studies, communicated to AD Mecca her opinion that Coyne and Bonisese were impermissibly providing athletic training services in September 2009. Professor Yeager was aware Lackawanna did not have any full-time athletic trainers on staff2 and noted Coyne and Bonisese, as recent graduates, were inexperienced and did not have the required Board license. Professor Yeager stated that Coyne in particular was “ill-equipped to handle the rigors [**6]  of a contact sport (like football) as an athletic trainer on her own regardless of whether she managed to pass [the certification] exam and obtain her state license.” Id., quoting Affidavit of Shelby Yeager. With regard to Bonisese, Bryan Laurie, who supervised her as a student, rated her performance as “below average/poor” and provided his assessment that she was not qualified to act as an athletic trainer in March of 2010. Id., citing Affidavit of Bryan Laurie.

Appellee Resch started playing football at the age of six, and continued playing through high school. Id. at 1204-05. Upon graduating from high school in 2008, Resch was accepted at Lackawanna and, hoping to continue playing football, met with Coach Duda prior to arriving for classes. Resch tried out for the Lackawanna football team in the fall of 2008. Resch not only failed to make the roster, but was also placed on academic probation, so he was ineligible to play football in the spring of 2009.

Appellee Feleccia also began playing football as a child at the age of ten, and played through high school. Feleccia was recruited by Coach Duda to play football at Lackawanna. See id. Feleccia did not make the team in the fall of 2008, but practiced [**7]  with them during that time. During a scrimmage in the fall of 2008, Feleccia tore the labrum in his left shoulder, which was surgically repaired. Feleccia was also placed on academic probation after the fall 2008 semester and temporarily withdrew from Lackawanna. See id.

In mid-January 2010, Resch and Feleccia returned to Lackawanna for the spring semester with the aspiration to make the football team. Id. Lackawanna required appellees to fill out and sign various documents in a “participation packet” before playing with the team, including a “Waiver of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreement” (the Waiver) and a form including an “Information/Emergency Release Consent” (the Consent). See Appellees’ Brief in Opposition to MSJ at Exhibit 18(b). Appellee Resch “skimmed” and signed the Waiver on March 22, 2010. Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1205. Feleccia also executed the Waiver on March 22, 2010. The Waiver provided as follows:

1. In consideration for my participation in [Football] (sport), I hereby release, waive, discharge and covenant not to sue Lackawanna College, its trustees, officers, agents, and employees from any and all liability, claims, demands, actions, and causes of action whatsoever arising out of or related [**8]  to any loss, damage, or injury, including death, that may be sustained by me, or to any property belonging to me,  [*8]  while participating in such athletic activity.

2. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any physical disability or health-related reasons or problems which would preclude or restrict my participation in this activity. I am fully aware of the risks and hazards connected with [Football] (sport), and I hereby elect to voluntarily participate in said activity, knowing that the activity may be hazardous to me and my property. I voluntarily assume full responsibility for any risks of loss, property damage, or personal injury, including death, that may be sustained by me, or any loss or damage to property owned by me, as a result of being engaged in such activity.

3. I have adequate health insurance necessary to provide for and pay any medical costs that may directly or indirectly result from my participation in this activity. I agree to indemnify and hold harmless Lackawanna College, its trustees, officers, agents, and employees, from any loss, liability, damage or costs, including court costs and attorneys’ fees that may be incurred, due to my participation in said activity. [**9]

4. It is my express intent that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement shall bind my family, if I am alive, and my heirs, assigns and personal representative, if I am deceased, and shall be deemed as a release, waiver, discharge and covenant not to sue Lackawanna College, its trustees, officers, agents and employees. I hereby further agree that this Waiver of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

In signing this release, I acknowledge and represent that I have read the foregoing Waiver of Liability and Hold Harmless Agreement, understand it and sign it voluntarily; no oral representations, statements, or inducements, apart from the foregoing written agreement, have been made; I am at least eighteen (18) years of age and fully competent; and I execute this Release for full, adequate and complete consideration fully intending to be bound by the same. Parent/Guardians’ signature required for individuals under eighteen (18) years of age.

Waiver attached as Exhibit A to Appellants’ Answer with New Matter.

Appellees also signed the Consent that provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

(1) I do hereby off[er] [**10]  my voluntary consent to receive emergency medical services in the event of an injury during an athletic event provided by the athletic trainer, team physician or hospital staff.

Consent attached as part of Exhibit 18(b) to Appellees’ Brief in Opposition to MSJ.

On March 29, 2010, appellees participated in the first day of spring contact football practice. The team engaged in a variation of the tackling drill known as the “Oklahoma Drill.” Appellees had previously participated in the Oklahoma Drill, or a variation of it, either in high school or at Lackawanna football practices, and were aware the drill would take place during practices. While participating in the drill, both Resch and Feleccia suffered injuries. Resch attempted to make a tackle and suffered a T-7 vertebral fracture. Resch was unable to get up off the ground and Coyne attended to him before he was transported to the hospital in an ambulance. See Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1207. Notwithstanding Resch’s injury, the Lackawanna football team continued practicing and running the Oklahoma Drill. Later that same day, Feleccia was injured while attempting to make his first tackle, experiencing a “stinger” in his right shoulder,  [*9]  i.e., experiencing numbness, [**11]  tingling and a loss of mobility in his right shoulder. Id. Bonisese attended Feleccia and cleared him to continue practice “if he was feeling better.” Id. Feleccia returned to practice and then suffered a traumatic brachial plexus avulsion while making a tackle with his right shoulder. Id.

Appellees filed suit against appellants, Lackawanna, AD Mecca, Coach Duda, Coach Reiss, Coach Lamagna and Coyne and Bonisese, asserting claims for damages caused by negligence, including negligence per se. The complaint also sought punitive damages, alleging appellants acted “willfully, wantonly and/or recklessly.” Complaint at ¶¶82, 97, 98, 102 & 103. Appellants filed preliminary objections which were overruled, and filed an answer with new matter raising defenses, including that the Waiver precluded liability on all of appellees’ claims.

At the close of discovery, appellants filed a motion for summary judgment, relying primarily on the Waiver; appellants argued they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to appellees’ voluntary release of appellants from any and all liability for damages resulting from participation in the Lackawanna football program. See Appellants’ Brief in Support of [**12]  MSJ at 13. In response, appellees argued Lackawanna “ran its Athletic Training Department in a manner demonstrating a total disregard for the safety of its student-athletes or the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Appellees’ Brief in Opposition to MSJ at 1. Appellees argued appellants had required appellees to sign the Consent for treatment by an “athletic trainer,” thus taking on a duty to provide an athletic trainer, but then failed to provide an athletic trainer for its football team. See id. at 18-20.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellants. The court ruled the Waiver: (1) did not violate public policy; (2) was a contract between Lackawanna and college students relating to their own private affairs, and (3) was not a contract of adhesion. See Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 2016 WL 409711, at *5-*10 (Pa..Com.Pl. Civil Div. Feb. 2, 2016), citing Chepkevich. v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010) (setting forth elements of valid exculpatory agreements).

The court then considered whether the Waiver was enforceable, i.e., whether it “spells out the intention of the parties with particularity and shows the intent to release [Lackawanna] from liability by express stipulation.” Id. at *10, quoting Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1191 (additional citations omitted). The court noted the Waiver did not specifically use the word “negligence” or mention the [**13]  Oklahoma Drill, but it was executed freely by appellees, and stated they were fully aware of the risks and hazards in the activity and “voluntarily assume[d] full responsibility for any . . . personal injury” resulting from it. Id. at *11, quoting the Waiver. The court found the Waiver immunized appellants from liability because it addressed the “risks and hazards” ordinarily inherent in the sport of football. Id. at *12.3 Finding the negligence claims barred, the court ruled the claim for punitive damages also failed, and discussion of the Waiver’s applicability to those allegations was unnecessary. Id. at *14 n.13.  [*10]  The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact and appellants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of the Waiver.

Appellees filed an appeal and the Superior Court reversed.4 Although the panel agreed with the trial court’s holding the Waiver was valid under Chepkevich, the panel disagreed that the Waiver barred all of appellees’ claims as a matter of law. The panel first observed the Waiver was “not sufficiently particular and without ambiguity” to relieve appellants of liability for their own acts of negligence. Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1212-13, quoting Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1189 (exculpatory [**14]  clause is unenforceable “unless the language of the parties is clear that a person is being relieved of liability for his own acts of negligence.”).

The panel also held the trial court erred in failing to address appellees’ allegations underlying their claim for punitive damages, and whether the Waiver applied to preclude liability based on those allegations. Id. at 1213. The panel recognized this Court’s jurisprudence holding exculpatory clauses are not enforceable to preclude liability for reckless conduct. Id. at 1214, citing Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., 47 A.3d 1190, 616 Pa. 385 (Pa. 2012).

Finally, the panel’s “most important” reason for reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was that, after reviewing the record in the light most favorable to appellees as the non-moving parties, there were genuine issues of material fact as to “whether the College’s failure to have qualified medical personnel at the March 29, 2010 practice constitute[d] gross negligence or recklessness,” and whether that failure caused appellees’ injuries or increased their risk of harm. Id. at 1214, 1219. The panel’s determination in this regard was based on its view that Lackawanna had a “duty of care to its intercollegiate student athletes . . . to have qualified medical personnel available at the [**15]  football tryout on March 29, 2010, and to provide adequate treatment in the event that an intercollegiate student athlete suffered a medical emergency.” Id. at 1215. The panel relied in part on Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Circ. 1993), where the Third Circuit predicted this Court “would hold that a special relationship existed between the [c]ollege and [student-athlete] that was sufficient to impose a duty of reasonable care on the [c]ollege.” Id. at 1367. The panel further held it was for a jury to decide whether appellees signed the Waiver “unaware that [Lackawanna’s] athletic department did not include qualified athletic trainers.” Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1219. Accordingly, the panel remanded the matter for trial.

Upon petition by appellants we granted allowance of appeal to address following issues:

a. Is a Pennsylvania college required to have qualified medical personnel present at intercollegiate athletic events to satisfy a duty of care to the college’s student-athletes?

b. Is an exculpatory clause releasing “any and all liability” signed in connection with participation in intercollegiate football enforceable as to negligence?

Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 644 Pa. 186, 175 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2017) (per curiam).

HN1[] This matter presents pure questions of law, over which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See [**16]  In re Vencil, 638 Pa. 1, 11-12, 152 A.3d 235 (Pa. 2017). “[A]n appellate court may reverse the entry of summary judgment only where it finds that the trial  [*11]  court erred in concluding that the matter presented no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is clear that the moving party was entitled to [a] judgment as a matter of law.” Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 576 Pa. 644, 841 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa. 2003), citing Pappas v. Asbel, 564 Pa. 407, 768 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2001). We consider the parties’ arguments with these standards in mind.

II.

A. Is a Pennsylvania college required to have qualified medical personnel present at intercollegiate athletic events to satisfy a duty of care to the college’s student-athletes?

Appellants argue the Superior Court created a brand new common law duty of care requiring colleges to have qualified medical personnel available to render treatment at every practice and every game. Appellants aver the Superior Court did so without attempting to analyze the factors set forth in Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000) (before recognizing new duty of care courts must analyze the relationship between the parties; the social utility of the actor’s conduct; the nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm incurred; the consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and the overall public interest in the proposed solution). Appellants’ Brief at 18-20, citing Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1215. Appellants [**17]  assert that, in creating this new duty of care, the Superior Court relied only on a decades-old, non-binding federal decision. Id., citing Kleinknecht, 989 F.2d at 1371. Appellants argue that, had the Superior Court applied the Althaus factors instead, it would not have created such a duty. Appellants’ Brief at 20-22. Appellants argue a proper analysis of these factors either weighs against the creation of a new duty or is neutral. Accordingly, appellants request we reverse the Superior Court’s decision to the extent it created a new duty.5

Appellees respond that the panel did not create a new, onerous duty, and that appellants actually failed to comply with existing common law and statutory duties to have qualified medical personnel available at intercollegiate athletic events. Appellees refer to MPA provisions that set forth the qualifications for an “athletic trainer” and the manner in which they must perform their duties. Specifically, appellees note the regulations implementing the MPA establish restrictions and protocols for licensed athletic trainers, and they also prohibit the use of the title “athletic trainer” by any person without a Board-issued license. [**18]  See Appellees’ Brief at 29-30, quoting 63 P.S. §422.51a (“An athletic trainer who meets the requirements of this section shall be licensed, may use the title ‘athletic trainer’ . . . and may perform athletic training services. A person who is not licensed under this section may not use the designation of licensed athletic trainer, athletic trainer or any of the listed abbreviations for that title, including ‘L.A.T.’ or ‘A.T.L.,’ or any similar designation.”). Appellees thus argue the Superior Court’s holding recognizes appellants have a duty to provide athletic trainers at practices,  [*12]  who, by statute, should be qualified medical personnel. Appellees’ Brief at 31.

Appellees also submit appellants’ claim the Superior Court ignored the Althaus factors is disingenuous. Appellees note the panel explicitly relied on Kleinknecht and, although the federal decision predated Althaus, the Third Circuit considered the same factors ultimately set forth in Althaus. Appellees’ Brief at 39-40, citing Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1215 (Kleinknecht court recognized: special relationship between college and student-athlete requiring college to act with reasonable care towards athletes; risk of severe injuries during athletic activities was foreseeable; [**19]  and college acted unreasonably in failing to protect against risk). In any event, appellees reiterate, the Superior Court did not create a new common law duty, but rather recognized the “duty of care is necessarily rooted in often amorphous public policy considerations[.]” Appellees’ Brief at 38, quoting Althaus, 756 A.2d at 1169.

Finally, appellees observe appellants themselves undertook the duty to protect their student-athletes by customarily hiring licensed athletic trainers prior to 2009, and holding out Coyne and Bonisese as “athletic trainers” in the documentation regarding their employment, including executed job descriptions, where Coyne and Bonisese acknowledged they were required to have passed the national certification exam, which is a pre-requisite to use of the title “athletic trainer.” See Appellees’ Brief at 41-43, quoting Rstmt (2d) of Torts, §323 (“One who undertakes . . . to render services to another . . . is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking[.]”). Appellees argue the evidence presented was sufficient to raise factual jury questions regarding whether appellants breached this duty and whether [**20]  that breach led to appellees’ injuries.6

Having considered the parties’ arguments and the opinion below, we acknowledge the Superior Court articulated a duty not previously recognized by Pennsylvania Courts: a college has a “duty of care to its intercollegiate student athletes requir[ing] it to have qualified medical personnel available at [athletic events, including] the football tryout, . . . and to provide adequate treatment in the event that an intercollegiate student athlete suffer[s] a medical emergency.” Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1215, citing Kleinknecht, 989 F.2d at 1369-70. We further recognize the Superior Court did not analyze the Althaus factors, as  [*13]  required when imposing a previously unarticulated common law duty. Althaus, 756 A.2d at 1169. Instead, the panel relied on non-binding federal case law to impose what it viewed as a new common law duty. In this specific regard, the panel erred.

HN2[] Courts should not enter into the creation of new common law duties lightly because “the adjudicatory process does not translate readily into the field of broad-scale policymaking.” Lance v. Wyeth, 624 Pa. 231, 85 A.3d 434, 454 (Pa. 2014), citing Seebold, 57 A.3d at 1245; see also Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Found. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 605 Pa. 269, 989 A.2d 313, 333 (Pa. 2010) (“Unlike the legislative process, the adjudicatory process is structured to cast a narrow focus on matters framed by litigants before the Court in [**21]  a highly directed fashion”). We also acknowledge it “is the Legislature’s chief function to set public policy and the courts’ role to enforce that policy, subject to constitutional limitations.” Seebold, 57 A.3d at 1245 & n.19 (additional citations omitted). “[T]he Court has previously adopted the default position that, unless the justifications for and consequences of judicial policymaking are reasonably clear with the balance of factors favorably predominating, we will not impose new affirmative duties.” Id. at 1245 (citations omitted).

Applying the Althaus factors is not a mere formality, but is necessary when courts announce a new common law duty. Althaus requires consideration of the justifications for and the relevant consequences and policy concerns of the new duty of care. See Althaus, 756 A.2d at 1169 (setting forth factors for determination of new common law duty). Further, “determining whether to impose a duty often requires us to weigh ‘amorphous public policy considerations, which may include our perception of history, morals, justice and society.'” Walters v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, 187 A.3d 214, 223 (Pa. 2018), quoting Althaus, 756 A.2d at 1169 (additional citations omitted). The Superior Court did not engage these factors, nor did the summary judgment record include relevant data regarding, for example, injury rates [**22]  at practices, the consequences of having (or not having) available qualified medical professionals, the budgetary or other collegiate resource impact, or the relative public policy concerns involved.7

Importantly, however, an Althaus analysis was not necessary here because our review reveals the present circumstances involve application of existing statutory  [*14]  and common law duties of care. See, e.g., Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036, 1038 (Pa. 2018) (analysis of Althaus factors not required where case is one involving “application of an existing duty to a novel factual scenario”). In Dittman, for example, we recognized the legal duty of an employer (UPMC) “to exercise reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information stored by the employer on an internet-accessible computer system.” Id. at 1038. We did so because UPMC had required its employees to provide sensitive personal information, and then collected and stored that information on its computer system without implementing adequate security measures, such as encryption, firewalls, or authentication protocols. Id. at 1047. We reasoned that this “affirmative conduct” by UPMC created the risk of a data breach, which in [**23]  fact occurred. Id. We further determined that, in collecting and storing its employees’ data on its computers, UPMC owed those employees a duty to “exercise reasonable care to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm arising out of that act.” Id. Dittman may have been our first opportunity to recognize this duty in the context of computer systems security, but there is longstanding jurisprudence holding that “[i]n scenarios involving an actor’s affirmative conduct, he is generally ‘under a duty to others to exercise the care of a reasonable man to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm to them arising out of the act.'” Id. at 1046, quoting Seebold, 57 A.3d at 1246. This existing duty “appropriately undergirds the vast expanse of tort claims in which a defendant’s affirmative, risk-causing conduct is in issue.” Id. at 1047, quoting Seebold, 57 A.3d at 1246, see also Dittman, 796 A.3d at 1056-57 (Saylor, CJ, concurring and dissenting) (requirement to provide confidential information as condition of employment created “special relationship” between employer and employees giving rise to duty of reasonable care to protect information against foreseeable harm).

Additionally, HN3[] we have adopted as an accurate statement of Pennsylvania law the Restatement (Second) of Torts §323 (1965). Gradel v. Inouye, 491 Pa. 534, 421 A.2d 674, 677-78 (Pa. 1980) (“Section 323(a) of the Restatement of Torts has been part [**24]  of the law of Pennsylvania for many years.”). Section 323 provides:

One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other’s person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if

(a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or

(b) the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.

Restatement. (Second) of Torts, §323 (1965). See also Feld v Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742, 746 (Pa. 1984) (landlord that undertook duty to provide secured parking for tenants may be liable for damages arising from failure to exercise reasonable care in doing so).

In Feld, the plaintiffs were injured during a carjacking that began inside the garage of their apartment building. They filed a negligence lawsuit against their landlord, who had charged tenants additional rental fees to provide a gate and security guard for its parking garages. In discussing the viability of the plaintiffs’ negligence action, the Feld Court first noted landlords do not generally owe a duty as insurer to protect the safety of their tenants. However, the Court noted such a duty might [**25]  arise if the landlord undertook  [*15]  to provide secured parking and failed to exercise reasonable care in doing so, and the tenants, who had relied on those services, were injured as a result. Id. at 746, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, §323 (1965) (identifying discrete duty where a “landlord [who] by agreement or voluntarily offers a program to protect the premises, . . . must perform the task in a reasonable manner and where a harm follows a reasonable expectation of that harm, he is liable.”).

Application of these legal principles to the present factual scenario supports a determination that “affirmative conduct” by appellants created a “special relationship” with and increased risk of harm to its student athletes such that appellants had a duty to “exercise reasonable care to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm arising” from that affirmative conduct. Dittman, supra. In addition, the record supports a finding appellants undertook a duty to provide duly licensed athletic trainers for the purpose of rendering treatment to its student athletes participating in athletic events, including the football practice on March 29, 2010,8 although it remains to be determined whether the steps actually taken by appellants satisfied that duty. [**26]  See Wilson v. PECO Energy Co., 2012 PA Super 279, 61 A.3d 229, 233 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sufficient facts alleged to overcome summary judgment and reach jury on question of scope of duty undertaken and its breach).

Specifically, when we consider the record in the light most favorable to appellees as the non-moving parties, we observe the following: before hiring Coyne and Bonisese, Lackawanna customarily employed athletic trainers, who were licensed as required by applicable statutes and regulations; Lackawanna required its student athletes including appellees to execute the Consent to treatment by “athletic trainer, team physician or hospital staff” in the event of an emergency during participation in the football program; Lackawanna held out Coyne and Bonisese as athletic trainers to appellees and their teammates, despite its knowledge they lacked the statutorily required licenses; Lackawanna demonstrated its awareness that Coyne and Bonisese did not have the qualifications of athletic trainers by renaming them “first responders,” but did not alter their job descriptions, which encompassed the duties of “athletic trainers”; Coyne and Bonisese were the only individuals present at the March 29, 2010 football tryout to provide treatment [**27]  to injured student athletes; the coaching staff propagated the misrepresentation of Coyne and Bonisese as athletic trainers; and Coyne and Bonisese  [*16]  performed the role of athletic trainers by attending appellees when they were injured, and directing appellee Feleccia to return to practice when he was “feeling better.”

Under these circumstances, appellants clearly created an expectation on which the student athletes might reasonably rely — i.e. in the case of injury during an athletic event, they receive treatment from a certified athletic trainer, as clearly outlined in the Consent they were required to sign. We thus easily conclude appellants undertook a duty to provide treatment by a certified athletic trainer at the March 29, 2010 practice. We further conclude the record, taken in the light most favorable to appellees, demonstrates the existence of a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment regarding whether appellants breached this duty and caused appellees’ injuries. Thus, we hold the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of appellants.

B. Is the Waiver enforceable as to the negligence claims?

Notwithstanding the existence of a duty [**28]  on the part of appellants, and factual allegations of a breach of that duty which would support a negligence claim, we must now consider whether the Waiver completely precludes any liability on such a claim, or on appellees’ additional claims of gross negligence and recklessness. Appellants observe that by signing the Waiver appellees released “any and all liability, claims, demands, actions and causes of action whatsoever arising out of or related to any loss, damage, or injury, including death, that may be sustained” while playing football at Lackawanna. Appellants’ Brief at 38. Appellants submit Topp Copy Prods. v. Singletary, 626 A.2d 98, 100, 533 Pa. 468 (Pa. 1993) held a Waiver of “any and all” liability was sufficiently clear to bar claims of all negligence, and the Superior Court erred in holding the Waiver is unenforceable because “it does not indicate that Lackawanna was being relieved of liability for its own acts of negligence.” Appellants’ Brief at 39, quoting Topp Copy, 626 A.2d at 100 (“[T]he word ‘all’ needs no definition; it includes everything and excludes nothing. There is no more comprehensive word in the language, and as used here it is obviously broad enough to cover liability for negligence.”) (additional citations omitted). Appellants emphasize “Pennsylvania [**29]  courts have consistently held that exculpatory clauses may bar suits based on negligence even where the language of the clause does not specifically mention negligence at all.” Appellants’ Brief at 43, quoting Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1193 (emphasis added).

Appellees submit the only issue preserved by appellants with respect to the validity of the Waiver is whether it is enforceable as to negligence, and that in this regard, the Superior Court correctly determined the Waiver is not sufficiently explicit regarding appellants’ own negligence to be enforceable. Appellees further assert the law is clear the Waiver is not enforceable to protect appellants from liability arising from gross negligence or recklessness, and the Superior Court properly remanded for further proceedings to determine whether appellants’ conduct constituted gross negligence or recklessness. Appellees’ Brief at 45-46, citing Tayar, supra, and Chepkevich, supra.

At the outset, we note appellants concede, as they must, that appellees’ claims of liability arising from recklessness are not precluded by the Waiver. See, e.g. Tayar, 47 A.3d at 1203 (finding public policy prohibits pre-injury waivers from releasing reckless behavior). The issue before us is thus narrowed to whether the Waiver, which purports [**30]  to release “any  [*17]  and all liability,” precludes liability on appellees’ claims of negligence and, relatedly, gross negligence.9 We bear in mind that exculpatory contracts are generally disfavored, and subject to close scrutiny. See Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Greenville Bus. Men’s Ass’n, 423 Pa. 288, 224 A.2d 620, 623 (Pa. 1966) (“contracts providing for immunity from liability for negligence must be construed strictly since they are not favorites of the law”); see also Tayar, 47 A.3d at 1199. Accordingly, exculpatory contracts are valid and enforceable only when “certain criteria are met.” Tayar, 47 A.3d at 1200 & n.8, citing Chepkevich and Topp Copy. Our case law provides “guiding standards” for assessing the enforceability of exculpatory contracts. See, e.g., Topp Copy, 626 A.2d at 99 (1) the contract language must be construed strictly, since exculpatory language is not favored by the law; 2) the contract must state the intention of the parties with the greatest particularity, beyond doubt by express stipulation, and no inference from words of general import can establish the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party invoking protection under the clause).

i. Ordinary Negligence

The Superior Court considered the Waiver to be unenforceable as to appellees’ claims of negligence because its “language does not indicate that Lackawanna was being relieved of liability for its own acts of negligence.” Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1213. The court further found fault with the Waiver because it did not specifically include the word “negligence.” Id. at 1212-13. Although our cases have directed that exculpatory clauses must clearly provide “a person is being relieved of liability for his own acts of negligence[,]” we have not prescribed specific language. Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1189, quoting Topp Copy, 626 A.2d at 99. In this case, the Waiver purported to protect appellants from “any and all liability” arising out of “any injury” sustained by student athletes while playing football at Lackawanna. We have determined such language is sufficient to express the parties’ intention to bar ordinary negligence claims. See Topp Copy, 626 A.2d at 99, 101 (lease agreement releasing lessor from ‘”any and all liability” clearly and unambiguously covered negligence claims’); see also Cannon v. Bresch, 307 Pa. 31, 160 A. 595, 596 (Pa. 1932) (lease releasing landlord from “all liability” was sufficient to cover liability for negligence).

 [*18]  The Superior Court, in reaching the opposite result, failed to acknowledge the trial court did not find [**32]  the mere existence of the Waiver automatically extinguished all potential claims of liability. Rather, the trial court applied the Topp Copy guiding standards to determine “whether the [exculpatory] clause ‘spells out the intention of the parties with particularity and shows the intent to release [appellants] from liability by express stipulation.'” Trial Court op. at 19, quoting McDonald v. Whitewater Challengers, Inc., 2015 PA Super 104, 116 A.3d 99, 121 (Pa. Super. 2015), quoting Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1191. The trial court examined the facts of record, including the parties’ intentions related to the execution of the Waiver as well as whether the risks undertaken by appellees and injuries suffered were encompassed within its terms. Trial Court op. at 18-22. The trial court determined it could not “say that the risks associated with Lackawanna’s Oklahoma Drill are so far beyond those risks ordinarily inherent to the sport of football and addressed in the Waiver as ‘risks and hazards’ typical of the sport that we must, as a matter of law, invalidate the Waiver.” Id. at 21-22. The trial court thus found the Waiver was enforceable and entered summary judgment in favor of appellants. We conclude that the Superior Court’s reversal of this holding with respect to appellees’ claims of ordinary negligence was error.10  [**33] See, e.g., Chepkevich, 2 A.3d at 1194-95 (release enforceable to preclude liability for general claims of negligence); see also, Topp Copy, 626 A.2d at 101 (release of “any and all” liability sufficient to preclude liability resulting from landlord’s negligence); see also Cannon, 160 A. at 597 (“The covenant in this lease against liability for acts of negligence does not contravene any policy of the law.”).

ii. Gross Negligence

As we have seen, appellees’ claims of ordinary negligence are barred by the Waiver, their claims of recklessness are not, and the allegations of recklessness will be tested at trial on remand. We have yet to rule on whether appellees may also proceed to trial on their allegations of gross negligence, or whether such claims are precluded by the Waiver. See Tayar, 47 A.3d at 1199 n.7 (“[A]s gross negligence is not implicated in the instant matter, we leave for another day the question of whether a release for gross negligence can withstand a public policy challenge.”).

Appellants consider gross negligence to be more closely aligned with negligence than recklessness, describing it as a form of negligence where there is a more significant departure from the standard of care, but without the “conscious action or inaction” that characterizes recklessness. [**34]  See Appellants’ Brief at 52. Appellants view gross negligence as a type of negligence that is covered by the Waiver and precludes appellees’ action for damages. Id. at 53-54.

Appellees respond that gross negligence is “more egregiously deviant conduct than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference. . . . The behavior of the defendant must be flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary standard of care.”  [*19]  Appellees’ Brief at 50, quoting Bloom v. Dubois Reg’l Med. Ctr., 597 A.2d 671, 679, 409 Pa. Super. 83 (Pa. Super. 1991); accord Albright v. Abington Mem’l Hosp., 548 Pa. 268, 696 A.2d 1159, 1164 (Pa. 1997) (“We believe that this definition is a clear, reasonable, and workable definition of gross negligence[.]”). Here, appellees assert, there were sufficient facts presented for the jury to conclude appellants’ conduct was grossly negligent, and public policy compels the conclusion such conduct should not be immunized by the Waiver. Appellees’ Brief at 52-53.

HN4[] A determination that a contract is unenforceable because it contravenes public policy “requires a showing of overriding public policy from legal precedents, governmental practice, or obvious ethical or moral standards.” See Tayar, 47 A.3d at 1199, citing Williams v. GEICO Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 613 Pa. 113, 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011). “It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion [**35]  in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring. . . .” Id., quoting Williams, 32 A.3d at 1200. Our law is clear that pre-injury exculpatory contracts purporting to protect a party from liability arising from recklessness are unenforceable on this public policy basis.

Although we have equated “gross negligence” with “recklessness” in the criminal law context, we have not expressly applied that equation in the civil context. See Com. v. Huggins, 575 Pa. 395, 836 A.2d 862, 867 (Pa. 2003) (gross negligence equates with recklessness for purpose of establishing mens rea for manslaughter). In the civil context, there is some difficulty in ascertaining the term’s precise meaning. See In re Scheidmantel, 2005 PA Super 6, 868 A.2d 464, 484-85 (Pa. Super. 2005) (recognizing “gross negligence” is frequently invoked but is not well defined in the civil context and “Pennsylvania Courts have struggled to provide a workable definition for ‘gross negligence’ when faced with the need to apply the concept.”). In Albright, 696 A.2d at 1164, we defined gross negligence in the context of the Mental Health Procedures Act11 as a “form of negligence where the facts support substantially more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference. The behavior of the defendant must be flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary standard [**36]  of care.” Id. at 1164, quoting Bloom, 597 A.2d at 679.

HN5[] Thus, although we have not previously settled on a definitive meaning of the term “gross negligence” as compared to “ordinary negligence” in the civil context, we have recognized there is a difference between the two concepts, and they are distinguished by the degree of deviation from the standard of care. See, e.g., Albright, supra; Ratti v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 2000 PA Super 239, 758 A.2d 695, 703 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 715, 785 A.2d 90 (Pa. 2001). See also Pa. Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions 13.50 (“Gross negligence is significantly worse than ordinary negligence” requiring proof actor “significantly departed from how a reasonably careful person would act under the circumstances”). To the extent our courts have used the term, the “general consensus finds gross negligence constitutes conduct more egregious than ordinary negligence but does not rise to the level of intentional indifference to the consequences of one’s acts.” Id. Other Pennsylvania sources have observed:

 [*20]  In essence, gross negligence is merely negligence with a vituperative epithet. It constitutes conduct more egregious than ordinary negligence but does not rise to the level of intentional indifference to the consequences of one’s acts. It may also be deemed to be a lack of slight diligence or care [**37]  comprising a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and the consequences to another party. The term has also been found to mean a form of negligence where the facts support substantially more than ordinary carelessness, inadvertence, laxity, or indifference. The behavior of the defendant must be flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary standard of care.

2 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Torts §20:5 (internal citations omitted).

HN6[] Gross negligence has thus been consistently recognized as involving something more than ordinary negligence, and is generally described as “want of even scant care” and an “extreme departure” from ordinary care. Royal Indem. Co. v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 255 F.Supp.2d 497, 505 (E.D. Pa. 2003), quoting Williams v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 9 Pa. Commw. 437, 306 A.2d 419, 422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973), aff’d 457 Pa. 470, 327 A.2d 70 (Pa. 1974); see also Scheidmantel, 868 A.2d at 485 (gross negligence is “a lack of slight diligence or care comprising a conscious, voluntary act or omission in ‘reckless disregard’ of a legal duty and the consequences to another party”). See also Black’s Law Dictionary 1057 (7th ed. 1999) (gross negligence is a “lack of slight diligence or care” and a “conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and the consequences to another party”). With these principles in mind, we now proceed to consider whether a pre-injury exculpatory [**38]  waiver is valid to preclude claims of gross negligence.12

In Tayar, we held an exculpatory clause was not valid to preclude liability arising from reckless conduct because allowing such waivers would permit parties to “escape liability for consciously disregarding substantial risks of harm to others[.]” Tayar, 47 A.3d at 1203. We recognized such pre-injury releases are unenforceable in circumstances where they “would jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the people by removing any incentive for parties to adhere to minimal standards of safe conduct.” Id.

As we have seen, HN7[] gross negligence does not rise to the level of the intentional indifference or “conscious disregard” of risks that defines recklessness, but it is defined as an “extreme departure” from the standard of care, beyond that required to establish ordinary negligence, and is the failure to exercise even “scant care.” Royal Indem. Co., 255 F.Supp.2d at 505. See also 2 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of  [*21]  Torts § 140 (gross negligence is “a high, though unspecified degree of negligence, or as courts sometimes say, the failure to use even slight care.”) Thus, gross negligence involves more than a simple breach of the standard of care (which would establish ordinary negligence), and instead [**39]  describes a “flagrant” or “gross deviation” from that standard. Bloom, 597 A.2d at 679 (gross negligence involves behavior that is “flagrant, grossly deviating from the ordinary standard of care”). As such, the same policy concerns that prohibit the application of a waiver in cases of recklessness — i.e., allowing it would incentivize conduct that jeopardizes the signer’s health, safety and welfare to an unacceptable degree requires a similar holding with regard to gross negligence.13 Accordingly, we hold the Waiver is not enforceable to preclude liability arising from appellees’ claims of gross negligence, and the allegations supporting such claims should be tested at trial on remand.

III. Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, we hold appellants had a duty to provide duly licensed athletic trainers for the purpose of rendering treatment to its student athletes participating in athletic events, including the football practice of March 29, 2010, and there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether appellants breached this duty. Moreover, although the Waiver bars recovery for appellees’ damages arising from ordinary negligence, we hold the Waiver does not bar recovery for damages arising [**40]  from gross negligence or recklessness, and there remain factual questions regarding whether appellants’ conduct constituted gross negligence or recklessness. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s order only to the extent it vacated the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on these claims specifically, and we remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justices Baer, Todd, Donohue and Mundy join the opinion.

Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Wecht file concurring and dissenting opinions.

Concur by: SAYLOR; WECHT

Dissent by: SAYLOR; WECHT

Dissent

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR

I join the majority opinion to the extent it reverses the Superior Court’s creation of a generalized duty of care owed by Pennsylvania colleges to student athletes to have medical personnel available at all football practices. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 14. I respectfully differ, however, with the majority’s follow-on holding that, under an assumption-of-duty theory as reflected in Section 323 of the Second Restatement of Torts, Lackawanna College definitively owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs on the date in question.

As a general matter, whether a defendant owed a duty of care to another person at [**41]  the relevant time is a legal issue to be decided on the underlying facts. See, e.g., Dittman v. UPMC,     Pa.    ,    , 196 A.3d 1036, 1046 (2018); accord Kukis v.  [*22]  Newman, 123 S.W.3d 636, 639 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003) (“The existence of a duty is a question of law for the court to decide based on the specific facts of the case.”). Because the complaint was dismissed on a defense motion for summary judgment, the majority appropriately “consider[s] the record in the light most favorable to [Plaintiffs] as the non-moving parties[.]” Majority Opinion, slip op. at 19. In doing so the majority recites certain facts which remain in dispute. This alone is not problematic given that, again, the record is being viewed favorably to Plaintiffs. The difficulty arises when the majority holds, in definitive terms, that a duty existed in light of such circumstances.

For example, the majority states, “Lackawanna held out Coyne and Bonisese as athletic trainers to [Plaintiffs] and their teammates,” and that these same two individuals “performed the role of athletic trainers by attending [Plaintiffs] when they were injured[.]” Id. Notably, Appellees expressly denied that Coyne and Bonisese held themselves out as athletic trainers or Lackawanna College held them out as such. See Defendants’ Answer and New Matter at ¶¶40, 42, 43, 44 (averring [**42]  that, at all relevant times, Coyne and Bonisese were held out by themselves and the college as first responders). Thus, I would frame the holding in more abstract terms and allow the common pleas court to determine, after resolution of any necessary factual disputes, whether Appellees’ affirmative conduct created a duty under the circumstances — and if so, the scope that duty.1

In terms of the second question accepted for review — whether the exculpatory clause is valid as to negligence — I also respectfully differ with the majority’s conclusion that the clause is unenforceable as contrary to public policy relative to a claim based on gross negligence.2

It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in  [*23]  regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring. There must be a positive, well-defined, universal public sentiment, deeply integrated in the customs and beliefs of the people and in their conviction of what is just and right and in the interests of the public weal.

Shick v. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590, 600, 716 A.2d 1231, 1235-36 (1998) (quoting Mamlin v. Genoe, 340 Pa. 320, 325, 17 A.2d 407, 409 (1941)); see also Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., 616 Pa. 385, 399, 47 A.3d 1190, 1199 (2012) (recognizing that “avoidance of contract [**43]  terms on public policy grounds requires a showing of overriding public policy from legal precedents, governmental practice, or obvious ethical or moral standards”). Tayar cited Williams v. GEICO Government Employees Insurance Co., 613 Pa. 113, 32 A.3d 1195 (2011), for this position, and continued as follows:

Public policy is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interest. As the term “public policy” is vague, there must be found definite indications in the law of the sovereignty to justify the invalidation of a contract as contrary to that policy[.] . . . Only dominant public policy would justify such action. In the absence of a plain indication of that policy through long governmental practice or statutory enactments, or of violations of obvious ethical or moral standards, the Court should not assume to declare contracts . . . contrary to public policy. The courts must be content to await legislative action.

Tayar, 616 Pa. at 399-400, 47 A.3d at 1199 (quoting Williams, 613 Pa. at 120-21, 32 A.3d at 1200) (alterations made by Tayar).

In this vein, it seems to me that, to invalidate the waiver relative to gross negligence claims as contrary to public policy, the concept of gross negligence would, at a minimum, have to be well understood and defined. [**44]  Apart from a clear notion of what constitutes gross negligence as distinguished from ordinary negligence, it seems difficult to contend that laws, legal precedents, long governmental practice, or other recognized indicators of longstanding, dominant public policy are so firmly entrenched in this Commonwealth against such waivers as to permit this Court to declare, as the majority presently does, that they are judicially prohibited.

Yet, as the majority explains, it is difficult even to ascertain the precise meaning of gross negligence, as that term represents an “amorphous concept,” that is, at its essence, “merely negligence with a vituperative epithet.” The majority proceeds to describe gross negligence as “appear[ing] to lie somewhere between” negligence and recklessness. Majority Opinion, slip op. at 21 n.9, 27.

This type of uncertainty in discerning just what gross negligence consists of, in my view (and for reasons more fully explained below) undermines the concept that liability waivers should be deemed unenforceable as against claims of gross negligence although they can be valid and enforceable in relation to claims of ordinary negligence.

In terms of the competing interests involved, it should go [**45]  without saying that athletic and other recreational pursuits by Pennsylvania residents are in the public interest and should be encouraged. See, e.g., Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 30, 2 A.3d 1174, 1191 (2010) (reviewing cases). On the other hand, it is plainly contrary to public policy to enforce releases which would allow individuals intentionally to harm others with impunity. Accord Tayar, 616 Pa. at 401, 47 A.3d at 1200. In Tayar, this Court extended that understanding to harm stemming  [*24]  from recklessness, that is, conduct in which the actor knowingly disregards an unreasonable risk of harm. Tayar reasoned that the conscious act of ignoring such a risk “aligns . . . closely with intentional conduct.” Id. at 403, 47 A.3d at 1201. Still, this Court should not overlook the competing policy grounds underlying the enforceability of liability waivers relative to inherently risky athletic activities.

Generally speaking, an exculpatory clause is a renunciation of a right and, as such, it constitutes a means of allocating risk as between contracting parties. See generally Anita Cava & Don Wiesner, Rationalizing a Decade of Judicial Responses to Exculpatory Clauses, 28 Santa Clara L. Rev. 611, 648 (1988). Because incurring risks is costly, shifting risks from the organizer of the athletic endeavor (the “supplier”) to the participant (the “consumer”) allows the supplier to lower the price of the activity, [**46]  particularly where there is market competition and/or where, as here, the provider is a non-profit organization. Cf. Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 594, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 1527, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1991) (applying similar reasoning to a contractual forum-selection clause). See generally Brief for Amicus Ass’n of Indep. Colls. & Univs. of Pa. at 12-14 (detailing that complying with the generalized duty imposed by the Superior Court would be likely to impose significant costs on the Association’s member institutions). A lower price, in turn, serves the public interest because, on the margin at least, recreational opportunities become available to lower-income residents who would otherwise be excluded from such events.

It may be assumed that another factor favoring enforcement is the recognition that, subject to limiting principles, parties are generally at liberty to enter into contracts of their choosing. See Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. American Cas. Co., 493 Pa. 254, 258, 426 A.2d 94, 96 (1981). This is reflected in the test for enforceability, one element of which asks whether each party is a “free bargaining agent.” Tayar, 616 Pa. at 399, 47 A.3d at 1199 (citing Emp’rs Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Greenville Business Men’s Ass’n, 423 Pa. 288, 224 A.2d 620 (1966)).

Conversely, enforcing waivers of liability based on any kind of fault — including ordinary negligence — diminishes incentives for the supplier to manage risks which it is in a better position than the consumer to control.

None of the above is to suggest that negligent or grossly negligent [**47]  conduct is in any sense socially beneficial. Rather, it is offered solely for the purpose of illustrating that multiple competing interests are at stake when a litigant requests that we judicially invalidate an otherwise binding contractual provision on public policy grounds. Presumably, this Court’s line of decisions enforcing waivers as to ordinary negligence reflects a balancing of these considerations.

Certainly, and as noted, a weighing of such policies favors unenforceability where intentional or reckless conduct is concerned. In such instances, not only are there obvious reasons based on enduring societal mores which support such a result, but — and perhaps less obvious — any competing interest in cost reduction is not unduly compromised. This is because, absent some proof of intentional conduct or conscious disregard, the common pleas court can, in a given case, be expected to act as a gatekeeper so that the supplier need not incur the cost of litigating the case to the conclusion of a jury trial and, perhaps, post-trial motions.

The same cannot be said for gross negligence precisely because of its “amorphous” nature. After today it will be difficult for common pleas courts to [**48]  decide — when the  [*25]  defendant is in possession of a validly-executed waiver covering the activity in question — whether the complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that it only alleges ordinary negligence and not gross negligence. As a consequence, litigants can be expected to argue, with regard to any supportable allegation of negligence, that they are entitled to have a jury decide whether the defendant’s negligence was, in fact, “gross.” Absent thorough and detailed appellate guidance as to the types of facts that must be pled to allege gross negligence, such an argument is likely to prevail in many if not most cases.

In all events, the type of policy making this Court presently undertakes is best suited to the General Assembly. We have observed on multiple occasions that the legislative branch is the appropriate forum for the balancing of social policy considerations and interests and the making of social policy judgments, and that it has the tools to perform these tasks — tools which the courts lack. See, e.g., Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 618 Pa. 632, 653, 57 A.3d 1232, 1245 & n.19 (2012).

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the holding reached in Part II(b) of the majority opinion. I note, however, that I do not foreclose reconsidering my [**49]  position if, in the future, the concept of gross negligence in Pennsylvania is made subject to a more precise definition which allows for some measure of consistency and predictability in litigation.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE WECHT

I. Introduction

Like the Majority, I believe that Lackawanna College had a duty to ensure that certified athletic trainers were available to treat student-athletes injured during the March 29, 2010 football tryouts. Considering the record in the light most favorable to Feleccia and Resch, as we must, it is clear that Lackawanna College assumed this duty through its own actions and representations.1 As a general matter, I agree as well with the Majority’s analysis regarding the enforceability of the liability waiver that Feleccia and Resch signed. Specifically, I join in the conclusion that the waiver was enforceable as to ordinary negligence, and not enforceable as to gross negligence.2

 [*26]  I write separately because, while the Majority limits Lackawanna College’s duty to the obligation it undertook through its own actions and representations, see Maj. Op. at 18-19, principles of Pennsylvania tort law require us to go further. Based upon [**50]  the factors that this Court articulated in Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000), as well as the persuasive opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg Coll., 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993), colleges owe a duty to their student-athletes to ensure that qualified medical personnel3 are available to render needed assistance during school-sponsored and supervised intercollegiate contact sport activities.

II. Legal Backdrop

A. Kleinknecht

While this Court previously has rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis as a basis for finding that colleges owe a duty of care to their students,4 we have not addressed whether colleges owe any duty to their student-athletes. In a case with similar facts, the Third Circuit predicted that this Court would indeed conclude that a college’s relationship with its student-athletes created a duty of care to these athletes during their participation in intercollegiate contact sports. Kleinknecht, 989 F.2d at 1367-69. In Kleinknecht, a college lacrosse player suffered cardiac arrest during practice and ultimately died. No medical personnel were present at the practice, and the coaches lacked any immediate means to contact emergency services.

Distinguishing prior cases in which courts held that colleges owed no duty to their students, [**51]  the Kleinknecht court explained that, unlike in those cases, the lacrosse player was not acting as a private student engaged in his own affairs when he collapsed.5 Instead, the student was  [*27]  participating in a scheduled practice for an intercollegiate, school-sponsored team under the supervision of coaches employed by the college. The court also found the college’s recruitment of the lacrosse player significant, noting that it could not “help but think that the College recruited [the athlete] for its own benefit, probably thinking that his [athletic skill] would bring favorable attention and so aid the College in attracting other students.” Id. at 1368.

Additionally observing that the imposition of a duty is justified when the foreseeable risk of harm is unreasonable, the Kleinknecht court considered the foreseeability and magnitude of the risk at the lacrosse practice. The court found that it is “clearly foreseeable that a person participating [in an intercollegiate contact sport] will sustain serious injury requiring immediate medical attention.” Id. at 1371. The court also opined that the “magnitude of foreseeable harm—irreparable injury or death to [a student-athlete] as a result of inadequate [**52]  preventative emergency measures—is indisputable.” Id. at 1370. Accordingly, in light of the relationship between a college and its student-athletes and the foreseeability of grave injury during athletes’ participation in contact sports, the court opined that the college owed a duty “to provide prompt and adequate emergency medical services” to its intercollegiate athletes when they are “engaged in a school-sponsored athletic activity for which [they] ha[ve] been recruited.” Id. at 1371.

B. Althaus

Seven years after the Third Circuit decided Kleinknecht, this Court compiled earlier approaches to the duty inquiry and distilled them into a five-factor framework.6 Observing that the concept of duty is “necessarily rooted in often amorphous public policy considerations,” Althaus, 756 A.2d at 1169, we acknowledged that discerning a “previously unrecognized duty” is an inherently difficult task. See Walters v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, 187 A.3d 214, 222 (Pa. 2018). To assist in this undertaking, we identified the following five factors for courts to consider: “(1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the social utility of the actor’s conduct; (3) the nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm incurred; (4) the consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and (5) the overall public [**53]  interest in the proposed solution.” Althaus, 756 A.2d at 1169. We also have noted that “[n]o one of these five factors is dispositive. Rather, a duty will be found to exist where the balance of these factors weighs in favor of placing such a burden on a defendant.” Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 576 Pa. 644, 841 A.2d 1000, 1008-09 (Pa. 2003).

III. Analysis

Although some twenty-six years have passed since the Third Circuit’s prediction in Kleinknecht, this Court has yet to resolve whether colleges owe any duty to their student-athletes. Allowing for argument’s  [*28]  sake that this is a new duty, a principled weighing of the Althaus factors leads to the conclusion that colleges owe a duty to ensure that qualified medical personnel are available to student-athletes participating in school-sponsored and supervised intercollegiate contact sports.7

A. Althaus (1): The relationship between the parties8

A party’s duty of care to another can arise from the parties’ relationship. See Morena v. S. Hills Health Sys., 501 Pa. 634, 462 A.2d 680, 684 (Pa. 1983). In light of the increased autonomy afforded to college students in modern times, courts have rejected the notion that colleges act in loco parentis or as [**54]  “insurer[s] of the safety of [their] students.” See Sullivan, 572 A.2d at 1213 (quoting Bradshaw, 612 F.2d at 138). However, despite widespread agreement among courts on this general principle, courts differ as to whether colleges owe any duty to their student-athletes.9 In recent  [*29]  decades, scholars have opined that the unique relationship between colleges and their student-athletes justifies the imposition of a duty upon the college when the athletes participate in intercollegiate contact sports. These commentators observe that, unlike the relationship between a college and its average student, the relationship between colleges and their student-athletes is characterized by mutual benefits and by the college’s assertion and exercise of significant control over the athletes’ lives, thereby justifying the recognition of a duty of care.10

In the case before us today, the relationship between [**55]  Lackawanna College and its intercollegiate football players weighs in favor of recognizing a duty similar to the one that the Third Circuit articulated in Kleinknecht. Like the student-athlete in Kleinknecht, at the time of their injuries, Feleccia and Resch both were engaged in something other than their own private affairs. Rather, Feleccia and Resch were participating in tryouts for the intercollegiate, school-sponsored football team under the supervision of coaches employed by the college. Like the Third Circuit in Kleinknecht, I would find that the college expected its relationship with the student-athletes to benefit the college. Before Feleccia and Resch enrolled at Lackawanna College, its head football coach contacted both of them about playing football for the school’s intercollegiate team, presumably because the college expected to gain favorable attention or other benefits from their participation in the program. Moreover, as the Majority aptly observes, Feleccia’s and Resch’s relationship with Lackawanna College rested in part upon their reasonable expectation, based upon the college’s actions and representations, that a certified athletic trainer would treat them if they [**56]  were injured during athletic activities. See Maj. Op. at 19.

Accordingly, like the school-athlete relationship at issue in Kleinknecht, the relationship between Lackawanna College and its intercollegiate football players weighs in favor of recognizing a duty.

B. Althaus (2): The social utility of the actor’s conduct

The conduct at issue in any negligence case is the “act or omission upon which liability is asserted.” Walters, 187 A.3d at  [*30]  234. In cases in which an actor’s omission is at issue, courts must consider not only the social utility of the actor’s conduct, but also the utility of the individual’s failure to act. For example, in Walters, this Court weighed the social utility of UPMC providing health care services to the community against the utility of UPMC’s failure to report a former employee’s theft of fentanyl to the appropriate authorities. Although we concluded that UPMC’s provision of health care was beneficial to society, we found that its failure to take “steps to enhance public safety” by ensuring that its former employee did not “repeat his dangerous and criminal conduct” lacked any social utility. Id. at 235.

Similarly, in Phillips, 576 Pa. 644, 841 A.2d 1000, this Court weighed the social utility of a company manufacturing butane lighters [**57]  against the utility of the company’s failure to manufacture these lighters with child safety features. After opining that the lighters had obvious social utility, we observed:

[T]he evidence does not show that the utility of the lighter is increased when a child safety device is lacking. Conversely, it is readily apparent that a device which would prevent small children, who lack the discretion and caution of the average adult, from creating a flame would have great utility in our society.

Id. at 659-60. Therefore, we concluded that this factor weighed in favor of imposing a duty.11

Here, we must weigh the social utility of Lackawanna College maintaining an intercollegiate athletic program against the utility of the college’s failure to ensure that qualified medical personnel were available to its student-athletes during football tryouts. Unquestionably, intercollegiate athletics furnish many benefits. As the Supreme Court of California observed in Avila, “[i]ntercollegiate competition allows a school to, on the smallest scale, offer its students the benefits of athletic participation and, on the largest scale, reap the economic and marketing benefits that derive from maintenance of [**58]  a major sports program.” Avila, 131 P.3d at 392. Intercollegiate athletic programs provide numerous revenue sources for colleges. In addition to the money colleges earn from ticket sales at intercollegiate athletic events, successful athletic programs serve as magnets for corporate sponsorships and substantial donations from alumni and fans.12 These programs also exponentially increase the sales of merchandise bearing the school’s name, mascot, and logo, generating significant profits for schools.13

Intercollegiate athletic programs also may increase the school’s marketability and enrollment.14 These programs inevitably  [*31]  facilitate the recruitment of other athletes, who desire to play for a reputable team. Intercollegiate athletics attract media attention, expanding the school’s visibility to prospective students. Further, the culture surrounding intercollegiate athletic programs improves the quality of students’ college experience by fostering and enhancing school spirit, and by offering students the opportunity to participate in a variety of social activities that attend these sports. Thus, by improving the quality of campus life, such programs enhance the school’s appeal to athletes and non-athletes [**59]  alike. Additionally, cheering for or participating in intercollegiate sports often creates a lasting connection between students and their universities, increasing the likelihood that they will donate to the school as alumni, recommend the school to potential students, or otherwise volunteer their services in order to help the school succeed.

In contrast, Lackawanna’s failure to ensure that certified athletic trainers were available during football tryouts lacks any social utility. Undoubtedly, the availability of qualified medical personnel such as certified athletic trainers increases the social utility of intercollegiate programs by providing athletes with proper medical care, and by preventing injuries like Feleccia’s and Resch’s. Moreover, as discussed more fully infra, the college’s failure to ensure that qualified medical personnel were available severely undermined the benefits that intercollegiate athletics generate.

Thus, because the social utility of maintaining intercollegiate athletic programs is great, and because the failure to ensure that qualified medical personnel are available to student-athletes during intercollegiate contact sports lacks any social utility, [**60]  this factor weighs in favor of imposing a duty.

C. Althaus (3): The nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm incurred

In addition to identifying the nature of a college’s relationship with its student-athletes as a basis for imposing a duty of care upon the college, the Kleinknecht court also found that the college owed its athletes a duty of care based upon the foreseeability of severe injury at a practice for a contact sport. Here, the risk of injury exceeded the risk at issue in Kleinknecht. As observed by amicus curiae, the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (“NATA”), collegiate football has one of the highest injury rates of all collegiate sports, and the preseason practice injury rate is over twice the rate during in-season practices. See Amicus Brief for NATA at 8. Moreover, college football players routinely suffer severe injuries. The drill that led to Feleccia’s and Resch’s injuries was a variation of the once-prevalent Oklahoma Drill, a tackling drill that has been the subject of extensive criticism during recent concussion litigation.15 Two experts, including the former head football coach at Texas A&M University and a certified athletic trainer at Stevenson [**61]  University, also opined that Lackawanna College ran a particularly dangerous variant of the drill.16

 [*32]  The foreseeability of the risk of the exacerbation of practice injuries was only enhanced when Lackawanna College employed Alexis Bonisese and Kaitlin Coyne to fulfill the roles of athletic trainers, despite the school’s awareness that these two individuals possessed neither the athletic training certifications nor the skills necessary to perform the duties of athletic trainers. See Maj. Op. at 3-4, 19. By employing Bonisese and Coyne, Lackawanna College not only failed to ensure that qualified medical personnel were available to care for injured football players, but also created an additional risk for the College’s athletes by allowing them to receive care and advice from unqualified individuals whom the athletes believed to be certified trainers. The athletes thus were unable to make an informed decision as to whether to consult or follow the recommendations of (uncertified) staff, exposing those athletes to the hidden risk of greater injury arising from bad advice.17

Given the magnitude and frequency with which players [**62]  sustain serious injury in contact sports, and football in particular, and given the likelihood that uncertified individuals undertaking the responsibilities of athletic trainers will render bad advice that further endangers athletes, the harm that Feleccia and Resch suffered was entirely foreseeable. In light of these considerations, Lackawanna College’s failure to protect against these risks was unreasonable, and this factor weighs in favor of imposing a duty on colleges in favor of student-athletes.

D. Althaus (4): The consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor

Requiring colleges to ensure that qualified medical personnel are available to student-athletes participating in intercollegiate contact sports undoubtedly imposes a financial burden upon colleges and universities, particularly small colleges lacking the resources of larger institutions. Some schools may be hard-pressed to find the money to fulfill this obligation, and could face a difficult decision between cutting spending in other areas of their budgets and reducing the number of intercollegiate sports that they offer. Additionally, it may be difficult for some colleges to find qualified medical personnel who are willing [**63]  to work for their schools, depending upon the individual’s salary requirements and the location of the college. However, for several mitigating reasons, these burdens weigh only modestly, if at all, against imposing a duty upon colleges.

First, this duty is limited. Like Lackawanna College, the college in Kleinknecht contended that imposing a duty of care would create a slippery slope, requiring colleges to provide medical personnel for all sports, irrespective of whether the sport posed a substantial risk of injury or whether the college sponsored or supervised the athletic event. The Third Circuit rejected this argument as an “unwarranted extension” of its holding, explaining that the duty it imposed was limited to the particular facts of the case in which an athlete suffered a medical emergency  [*33]  while participating in an intercollegiate contact sport for which the college had recruited him. Kleinknecht, 989 F.2d at 1370-71. I agree generally with the Kleinknecht court’s suggested limitation,18 such that the duty in question should extend only to intercollegiate contact sports. At least for present purposes, other athletic activities, such as intramurals, necessarily fall outside the scope of this duty.19

Second, Lackawanna College and colleges like it are tuition-dependent for the bulk of their revenue. See Deposition of Suellen Musewicz, 11/11/14, at 15. For all the reasons discussed above, maintaining an intercollegiate athletic program attracts more students, increasing tuition revenue. Indeed, Feleccia and Resch both averred that they attended Lackawanna College because they wanted to participate in its football program.20 Furthermore, although hiring qualified medical personnel such as certified athletic trainers increases the cost of colleges’ athletic programs, it also can increase the appeal of these programs to prospective student-athletes, in additional service of the above-stated benefits. By contrast, developing a reputation for employing unqualified individuals to treat injured players has the potential to decrease the number of students willing to participate on a college’s sports teams. Failing to ensure that injured athletes have access to proper medical care during athletic events increases injury rates, decreasing the college’s ability to capitalize on the benefits that successful programs generate. Additionally, such failures can result in litigation [**65]  (as evidenced by the present case), which presents its own financial and reputational challenges for colleges.

Third, hiring qualified medical personnel is hardly cost-prohibitive. This is particularly true because the number of medical personnel a college must employ to cover its intercollegiate contact sports is dependent upon a variety of factors unique to each college. As one example, NATA has promulgated worksheets to assist colleges in calculating an appropriate amount of medical coverage for their athletic programs. These worksheets incorporate many factors, including the intercollegiate sports that the college offers, the injury rates of those sports, the length of each sport’s season, and the number of participating athletes.

Using Lackawanna College as an example, to be staffed adequately in-season for all sports during the 2009-10 academic year according to NATA’s recommendations, one expert opined that the college needed to hire approximately 2.27 full-time athletic trainers. See Expert Report of M.  [*34]  Scott Zema, 9/28/15, at 4 (unnumbered). This number is roughly consistent with the two full-time certified athletic trainers that Lackawanna College had on staff prior to employing [**66]  Bonisese and Coyne, an expense that evidently was deemed cost-effective at the time. Thus, requiring Lackawanna College to meet NATA’s suggestion would require it to do little more than restore the staffing it had prior to creating the dubious “first responder” positions for the uncertified Bonisese and Coyne.

In short, the consequences of recognizing this duty are not de minimis, but this impact is offset by the aforementioned considerations, particularly when considering the facts of this case. Thus, in my view, the fourth Althaus factor weighs only slightly, if at all, against imposing a duty.

E. Althaus (5): The overall public interest in the proposed solution

In cases in which we have considered whether one party owed a duty to another, this Court time and again has observed that the concept of duty amounts to “the sum total of those considerations of policy which led the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.” See Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672, 681 (Pa. 1979) (quoting Leong v. Takasaki, 55 Haw. 398, 520 P.2d 758, 764 (Haw. 1974)). Accordingly, like Dean Prosser, we have recognized:

These are shifting sands, and no fit foundation . . . . The word serves a useful purpose in directing attention to the obligation to be imposed upon the defendant, rather than the [**67]  causal sequence of events; beyond that it serves none. In the decision whether or not there is a duty, many factors interplay: The hand of history, our ideas of morals and justice, the convenience of administration of the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss should fall. In the end the court will decide whether there is a duty on the basis of the mores of the community, “always keeping in mind the fact that we endeavor to make a rule in each case that will be practical and in keeping with the general understanding of mankind.”

Gardner ex rel. Gardner v. CONRAIL, 573 A.2d 1016, 1020, 524 Pa. 445 (Pa. 1990) (quoting William L. Prosser, Palsgraf Revisited, 52 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 14-15 (1953)). Thus, a duty arises, in part, from society’s interest in protecting the plaintiff from a certain harm.

In Kleinknecht and in the present case, the public has a substantial interest in protecting the health and well-being of intercollegiate athletes. As the Superior Court observed, “[c]olleges are expected to put a priority on the health and safety of their students, especially student[-]athletes engaged in dangerous sports.” Feleccia, 156 A.3d at 1219. As discussed supra, student-athletes participating in intercollegiate contact sports face a significant and foreseeable risk of acute injury, and colleges benefit considerably [**68]  from students’ participation in their athletic programs. The receipt of such benefits at the expense of these athletes’ health and well-being is, as one scholar opined, “grossly unfair.”21

Colleges are best positioned to ensure that their athletes receive timely, competent medical attention when they participate in contact sports. In theory, one might suggest that student-athletes could  [*35]  seek out their own treatment when they are injured and decide for themselves when they feel well enough to return to play. The wisdom of imposing such a responsibility on student-athletes is questionable, at best. Scholars have observed that, when allowed to make their own decisions regarding injuries and returning to play, collegiate athletes often are willing to sacrifice their bodies in pursuit of their athletic goals, and to take great risks because they believe themselves to be impervious to injury.22 Further, in addition to the pressure that they place upon themselves, student-athletes also experience pressure from coaches, teammates, parents, sponsors, and the media to perform despite their injuries.23 This pressure can cause athletes to return to play before recovering fully from an illness [**69]  or injury or to play through pain rather than receiving necessary medical attention.24 These considerations are only amplified in the context of a competitive tryout, when an athlete may fear losing the chance to play entirely. Moreover, the extensive training and certification required of an athletic trainer demonstrates just how unqualified student-athletes are to make their own decisions regarding whether they need medical attention and when they can return to play.25

Our Commonwealth’s imposition of rigorous requirements on those wishing to claim the title “athletic trainer” also demonstrates the interest of our citizens, expressed through their General Assembly, in ensuring that athletes who seek athletic training services receive a certain standard of care. The Medical Practice Act of 1985 and its implementing regulations prohibit unlicensed individuals from using the title “athletic trainer” or providing athletic training services, and allow the imposition of injunctions and penalties on those who [**70]  violate the Act.26 As these laws indicate,  [*36]  the interest of Pennsylvania and its citizens in the health and safety of student-athletes is particularly great when a college affirmatively purports to provide its athletes with care from certified athletic trainers while in fact allowing uncertified individuals to masquerade in performing athletic training duties. In such circumstances, an athlete’s decision-making ability regarding his medical care and return to play not only is compromised by the aforementioned pressures, but also is impaired by his ignorance of the caregiver’s lack of qualification to deliver advice.

Lackawanna College’s conduct makes clear that the public’s interest in protecting the health and safety of intercollegiate athletes cannot be entrusted categorically to colleges based upon the assumption that they will in all instances ensure that their athletic departments are staffed adequately to provide treatment to injured student-athletes. Judicial recognition of this duty is necessary to ensure that colleges take the necessary precautions to protect their athletes from injury by holding them accountable for failing to fulfill this obligation.

Because the public [**71]  has a strong interest in protecting collegiate athletes from injury, and from receiving athletic training services from uncertified individuals, this factor also weighs in favor of imposing a duty.

IV. Conclusion

Based upon this analysis of the Althaus factors, the better view of Pennsylvania law is that colleges and universities bear a duty to ensure that qualified medical personnel are available to student-athletes when the athletes participate in intercollegiate contact sports. Whether Lackawanna College breached this duty, and whether this breach caused Feleccia’s and Resch’s injuries, remain questions for the jury.27 Thus, while I agree with the Majority to the extent that it concludes that Lackawanna College owed a duty to Feleccia and Resch in this case, I disagree with the Majority’s choice to limit its holding to this case-specific evaluation of this school’s particular representations and these parties’ course of conduct. Unintentionally, but in practical effect, such limitation may create a perverse incentive for institutions like Lackawanna College to do less rather than more to protect their athletes by encouraging the institutions to make no representations at all.

End of Document


Twenty Years ago, releases were void in New York, here; a release stopped a claim for an injury from a plaintiff playing flag football

New York has a statute that voids releases if used by places of amusement where you pay to enter. Issue in this case was, did the plaintiff pay to enter the field or pay the league.

By paying the league, he did not pay a place of amusement, and the release stopped his claims.

Marcf v. Middle Country Center School District, Long Island Flag Football League, Inc. et. Al. 57 Misc. 3d 1225(A); 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4717; 2017 NY Slip Op 51678(U)

State: New York: Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County

Plaintiff: Murat Marcf

Defendant: Middle Country Center School District, Long Island Flag Foot-Ball League, Inc. and Long Island Flag Football, Inc.,

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: for the Defendant

Year: December 2017

This case is one of many showing how release law has changed over the years. New York was a state that once barred releases and now easily enforces them. If you use releases, you must stay current on the law affecting your release. You probably also need to have your release updated. Contact me if you need your release checked.

Summary

New York GOL § 5-326 states that in New York places of amusement, where the patrons pay to enter or play are void. Here the place of amusement was a football field owned by the defendant. However, the plaintiff did not pay the defendant to play on the field; he paid the flag football league so the release he signed was valid and stopped his claims.

Facts

The plaintiff was injured playing flag football. His flag football game was part of a league. The plaintiff paid the league to play, and the league organized games and places to play.

The plaintiff jumped to receive a pass and landed on a concealed sprinkler head inuring is foot. He sued to recover for his injuries. The field he was playing on was owned by the defendant school district.

Before playing the plaintiff signed a release. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff claims based upon the release. The following is the court’s analysis and dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The court thoroughly went through release law in New York. The court referred to the release as documentary evidence that must resolve all factual issues if the motion was to be granted.

For the release to be valid, the terms of the release must be clear, unambiguous and conclusively dispose of the matter. A release is a contract and will be governed by contract law. If the release is not void by statute or public policy a release absolving a party of negligence will be enforced.

The court found the language of the release was clear and unambiguous and thus enforceable and binding upon the parties. The release is valid and enforceable unless the plaintiff claims duress, illegality, fraud or mutual mistake. Here the plaintiff did not plead any of those.

Plaintiff in this matter makes no claim of duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake in the signing of the subject Release. Instead, plaintiff alleges in opposition to the motion that the Release is void as against public policy pursuant to GOL § 5-326, and that defendant is, therefore, barred from relying on the Release in seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint. GOL § 5-326 renders void and unenforceable agreements that exempt certain places of public amusement, recreation and similar establishments from liability.

General Obligations Law § 5-326 was enacted to stop gyms from using a release. The courts have not looked at the statute from stopping places of amusement from using a release.

In general, when a participant pays a fee to use recreational facilities, or pays league fees and the league pays for use of those facilities, a waiver and release of liability signed by the participant is void pursuant to GOL § 5-326 To void a release of liability executed by a user of a recreational facility pursuant to GOL § 5-326, there must be an evidentiary showing that the individual paid a fee for use of the facility…

Here the plaintiff did not pay to use the field, the place of amusement. The plaintiff paid to join the league. The field was used for free by the league.

A plaintiff’s complaint will be properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) where the plaintiff claims that the Release is void pursuant to GOL §5-326, but fails to establish that he or she paid a fee directly to the owner or operator of the recreational facility for use of the facility where the alleged injury occurred…

Because the plaintiff did not pay the “place of amusement” the owner of the field, GOL §5-326 did not apply.

So Now What?

Release law evolves, constantly. The evolution of releases in New York went from they were void because of GOL §5-326, to unless the plaintiff can prove an exact relationship to the defendant and the statute the release will be valid.

If you use a release, you must stay current on release law. Read these articles and if your release has not been updated in a while contact me.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

   

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law    Rec-law@recreation-law.com    James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,


Marcf v. Middle Country Center School District, LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. et. Al. 57 Misc. 3d 1225(A); 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4717; 2017 NY Slip Op 51678(U)

Marcf v. Middle Country Center School District, LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. et. Al. 57 Misc. 3d 1225(A); 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4717; 2017 NY Slip Op 51678(U)

Murat Marcf, Plaintiff(s), against Middle Country Center School District, LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. and LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL, INC., Defendant(s).

3015-2016

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, SUFFOLK COUNTY

57 Misc. 3d 1225(A); 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4717; 2017 NY Slip Op 51678(U)

December 11, 2017, Decided

NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRINTED OFFICIAL REPORTS.

CORE TERMS: league, football, flag, void, documentary evidence, signing, public policy, establishment, unambiguous, supporting papers, recreational facilities, unenforceable, participating, conclusively, recreation, amusement, playing, binding, matter of law, causes of action, entitlement, enforceable, illegality, gymnasium, producing, dispose, duress, mutual, exempt, facie

HEADNOTES

Release–Scope of Release–General Obligations Law § 5-326 did not void unambiguous waiver and release of liability where plaintiff paid fee to league to play flag football on field on which he was injured since no part of fee went to field owner. General Obligations Law § 5-326 (Agreements exempting pools, gymnasiums, places of public amusement or recreation and similar establishments from liability for negligence void and unenforceable).

COUNSEL: [*1] For Plaintiff: Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, New York.

For Defendants: Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, New York, New York.

JUDGES: PETER H. MAYER, J.S.C.

OPINION BY: PETER H. MAYER

OPINION

Peter H. Mayer, J.

Upon the reading and filing of the following papers in this matter: (1) Notice of Motion by the defendants, dated June 15, 2016, and supporting papers; (2) Affirmation in Opposition by the plaintiff, dated August 22, 2016, and supporting papers; (3) Reply Affirmation by the defendants, dated September 15, 2016, and supporting papers; (4) Sur Reply by the plaintiff, dated September 21, 2016, and supporting papers; and now

UPON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT of the foregoing papers, the motion is decided as follows: it is

ORDERED that the motion (seq. # 001) by defendants, Middle Country Central School District (“School District”) and Long Island Flag Football, Inc., s/h/a Long Island Flag Football League, Inc. and Long Island Flag Football, Inc. (“the League”), which seeks an Order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (5), is hereby granted; and it is further

ORDERED that counsel for defendants shall promptly serve a copy of this Order upon counsel for all parties by First Class [*2] Mail, and shall promptly thereafter file the affidavit(s) of such service with the Suffolk County Clerk.

In this action, plaintiff alleges that on October 4, 2015 he injured his left foot while playing in a League flag football game, when he jumped to catch a pass and landed on a concealed sprinkler head. The game was being played on a field located on the grounds of Newfield High School, which is operated by the defendant School District. Prior to playing in the football game, plaintiff and his teammates signed a Waiver and Release of Liability (“Release”), which states:

In return for my being allowed to participate in any way in the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC., I release and agree not to sue the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC., its employees directors and non-employees such as referees, coaches, agents, sponsors, and owners of fields used, from all present and future claims made by me or my family, estate, heirs or assigns for property damage, personal injury, or wrongful death arising as a result of my participation in the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. and caused by the ordinary negligence of the parties above, wherever, whenever, or however the same may [*3] occur. I understand and agree that those listed above are not responsible for any injury or property damage arising out of my participation out of my participation (sic) in the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC., even if caused by their ordinary negligence. I understand that participation in the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. involves certain risks including, but not limited to, serious injury, severe economic losses, permanent disability, and even death. I am voluntarily participating in the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. with knowledge of the danger involved and agree to accept all risks of such participation. I certify that I am in excellent physical health, and may participate [**2] in strenuous and hazardous physical activities, including the flag football to be played in the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. I agree that prior to participating, I will inspect the facilities and equipment to be used, and if I believe anything unsafe, I will immediately advise my coach of said condition(s) and refuse to participate. Permission is granted for me to receive medical treatment, if needed. I also agree to indemnify and hold harmless those listed above for all claims [*4] arising out of my participation in the LONG ISLAND FLAG FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC. and all related activities. I understand that this document is intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted by the State of New York and agree that if any portion of this agreement is invalid, the remainder will continue in full legal force and effect. I further agree that any legal proceedings related to this waiver will take place in Suffolk County, New York. I am of legal age and am freely signing this agreement.

We have read this agreement and understand that by signing this form, we are giving up legal rights and remedies and that the terms of this release are binding on each one of us.

The defendants contend in their dismissal motion that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury while playing in the game, and that by signing the Release, the plaintiff effectively released the defendants from liability for any injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained during the game. Defendants conclude, therefore, that they are entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (5).

Generally, on a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, the court will accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the [*5] benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Walton v New York State Dept. of Corr. Services, 13 NY3d 475, 484, 921 N.E.2d 145, 893 NYS2d 453 [2009], quoting Nonnon v City of New York, 9 NY3d 825, 827, 874 N.E.2d 720, 842 NYS2d 756 [2007]). Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), a party may move for dismissal of one or more causes of action on the ground that “a defense is founded upon documentary evidence.” Likewise, a party may move for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that “the cause of action may not be maintained because of … [a] release” of liability.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be appropriately granted where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law (see AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State Street Bank and Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 842 N.E.2d 471, 808 NYS2d 573 [2005]; Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 98 NY2d 314, 774 N.E.2d 1190, 746 NYS2d 858 [2002]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 638 N.E.2d 511, 614 NYS2d 972 [1994]; Thompsen v Baier, 84 AD3d 1062, 923 NYS2d 607 [2d Dept 2011]; Rietschel v Maimonides Medical Center, 83 AD3d 810, 921 NYS2d 290 [2d Dept 2011]). In other words, the documentary evidence must resolve all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusively dispose of the plaintiff’s claim (see Palmetto Partners, L.P. v AJW Qualified Partners, LLC, 83 AD3d 804, 921 NYS2d 260 [2d Dept 2011]; Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v Lasertone Corp., 76 AD3d 519, 520, 907 NYS2d 498 [2d Dept 2010]).

When a defendant moves for CPLR 3211(a)(1) dismissal based on documentary evidence that the plaintiff signed a release of liability in favor of the defendant, dismissal may be granted where the terms of the release are clear, unambiguous and conclusively dispose of the matter (see Burgos v New York Presbyterian Hosp., 155 AD3d 598, 2017 NY Slip Op 07585 [2d Dept 2017]; Rudovic v Rudovic, 131 AD3d 1225, 16 NYS3d 856 [2d Dept 2015]). In effect, a release is a contract and its construction [*6] is governed by contract law (see Outdoors Clothing Corp. v Schneider, 153 AD3d 717, 60 NYS3d 302 [2d Dept 2017]; Kaminsky v Gamache, 298 AD2d 361, 751 NYS2d 254 [2d Dept 2002]). Absent a statute or public policy to the contrary, a contractual provision absolving a party from its own negligence will be enforced (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 593 N.E.2d 1365, 583 NYS2d 957 [1992]; Deutsch v Woodridge Segway, LLC, 117 AD3d 776, 985 NYS2d 716 [2d Dept 2014]; Princetel, LLC v Buckley, 95 AD3d 855, 944 NYS2d 191 [2d Dept 2012]). A defendant establishes its prima facie entitlement to dismissal by producing the waiver and release signed by the plaintiff (see Brookner v New York Roadrunners Club, Inc., 51 AD3d 841, 858 NYS2d 348 [2d Dept 2008]; Bufano v National Inline Roller Hockey Ass’n, 272 A.D.2d 359, 707 N.Y.S.2d 223 [2d Dept 2000]).

If the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a “jural act” binding on the parties (see Booth v 3669 Delaware, Inc., 92 NY2d 934, 703 N.E.2d 757, 680 NYS2d 899 [2d Dept 1998]; Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 249 N.E.2d 386, 301 NYS2d 508 [1969]). The Court finds that the language of the subject Release is clear and unambiguous and is, therefore, valid, enforceable and binding on the parties (see Lago v Krollage, 78 NY2d 95, 575 N.E.2d 107, 571 NYS2d 689 [1991]; Booth v 3669 Delaware, Inc., 92 NY2d 934, 703 N.E.2d 757, 680 NYS2d 899 [2d Dept 1998]). A release will not be treated lightly, and will not be set aside by a court without a showing of duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake (see Liotti v Galasso, Langione and Botter, 128 AD3d 912, 8 NYS3d 578 [2d Dept 2015]; Seff v Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Schlissel, P.C., 55 AD3d 592, 865 NYS2d 323 [2d Dept 2008]; Shklovskiy v Khan, 273 AD2d 371, 709 NYS2d 208 [2d Dept 2000]; Delaney v County of Westchester, 90 AD2d 819, 455 NYS2d 839 [2d Dept 1982], appeal dismissed 59 NY2d 763 [1983]; Thives v Holmes Ambulance Service Corp., 78 AD2d 651, 432 NYS2d 235 [2d Dept 1980]). Plaintiff in this matter makes no claim of duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake in the signing of the subject Release. Instead, plaintiff alleges in opposition to the motion that the Release is void as against pubic policy pursuant to GOL § 5-326, and that defendant is, therefore, barred from relying on the Release in seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. GOL § 5-326 renders void and unenforceable agreements that exempt certain [*7] places of public amusement, recreation and similar establishments from liability. In this regard GOL § 5-326 states:

Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to [**3] be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.

In general, when a participant pays a fee to use recreational facilities, or pays league fees and the league pays for use of those facilities, a waiver and release of liability signed by the participant is void pursuant to GOL § 5-326 (see Falzone v City of New York, 128 AD3d 889, 9 NYS3d 165 [2d Dept 2015]). To void a release of liability executed by a user of a recreational facility pursuant to GOL § 5-326, there must be an evidentiary showing that the [*8] individual paid a fee for use of the facility (see Lago v Krollage, 78 NY2d 95, 575 N.E.2d 107, 571 NYS2d 689 [1991]; Stuhlweissenburg v Town of Orangetown, 223 AD2d 633, 636 NYS2d 853 [2d Dept 1996]; Stone v Bridgehampton Race Circuit, 217 AD2d 541, 629 NYS2d 80 [2d Dept 1995]; Miranda v Hampton Auto Raceway, 130 AD2d 558, 515 NYS2d 291 [2d Dept 1987]).

A plaintiff’s complaint will be properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) where the plaintiff claims that the Release is void pursuant to GOL §5-326, but fails to establish that he or she paid a fee directly to the owner or operator of the recreational facility for use of the facility where the alleged injury occurred (see Brookner v New York Roadrunners Club, Inc., 51 AD3d 841, 858 NYS2d 348 [2d Dept 2008]; Bufano v National Inline Roller Hockey Ass’n, 272 AD2d 359, 707 NYS2d 223 [2d Dept 2000]). When a plaintiff fails to produce any evidence that he or she paid a fee for admission to, or use of, a municipality’s field, GOL § 5-326 will not void a release of liability executed by the plaintiff prior to participating in a sporting event (see Stuhlweissenburg v Town of Orangetown, 223 AD2d 633, 636 NYS2d 853 [2d Dept 1996]). Under such circumstances, the plaintiff’s waiver of liability is enforceable and not void as against public policy in violation of GOL § 5-326 (see Lago v Krollage, 78 NY2d 95, 575 N.E.2d 107, 571 NYS2d 689 [1991]; Lee v Boro Realty, LLC, 39 AD3d 715, 832 NYS2d 453 [2d Dept 2007]; Castellanos v Nassau/Suffolk Dek Hockey, 232 AD2d 354, 648 NYS2d 143 [2d Dept 1996]; Stuhlweissenburg v Town of Orangetown, 223 AD2d 633, 636 NYS2d 853 [2d Dept 1996]; Stone v Bridgehampton Race Circuit, 217 AD2d 541, 629 NYS2d 80 [2d Dept 1995]; Koster v Ketchum Communications, 204 AD2d 280, 611 NYS2d 298 [2d Dept 1994]).

Here, by producing the Waiver and Release signed by the plaintiff, the defendants established prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint (see Brookner v New York Roadrunners Club, Inc., 51 AD3d 841, 858 NYS2d 348 [2d Dept 2008]; Bufano v National Inline Roller Hockey Ass’n, 272 A.D.2d 359, 707 N.Y.S.2d 223 [2d Dept 2000]). In opposition, plaintiff has failed to show he paid to use the field where he was allegedly injured, or that any portion of his League fee was paid to the School District for the use of the field. In fact, the affidavit of the defendant League’s President, George Hignell, shows [*9] that the School District “did not require a fee for the use of its fields” and that “[n]either the plaintiff nor the [L]eague paid a fee for use of Newfield High School athletic field” where the plaintiff is alleged to have been injured. Therefore, the Release is not void as against public policy pursuant to GOL § 5-326.

Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(5) (see CPLR 3211[a][1]; CPLR 3211[a][5]; Burgos v New York Presbyterian Hosp., 155 AD3d 598, 2017 NY Slip Op 07585 [2d Dept 2017]; Rudovic v Rudovic, 131 A.D.3d 1225, 16 NYS3d 856 [2d Dept 2015] [**4] ; Brookner v New York Roadrunners Club, Inc., 51 AD3d 841, 858 NYS2d 348 [2d Dept 2008]; Bufano v National Inline Roller Hockey Ass’n, 272 AD2d 359, 707 NYS2d 223 [2d Dept 2000]).

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: December 11, 2017

PETER H. MAYER, J.S.C.


Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296; 834 P.2d 696; 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3969; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7261; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11765; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11870

Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296; 834 P.2d 696; 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3969; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7261; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11765; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11870

Kendra Knight, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Michael Jewett, Defendant and Respondent.

No. S019021

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

3 Cal. 4th 296; 834 P.2d 696; 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3969; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7261; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11765; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11870

August 24, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of San Diego County, No. N39325, Don Martinson, Judge.

DISPOSITION: The judgment of the Court of Appeal, upholding the summary judgment entered by the trial court, is affirmed.

CASE SUMMARY:

CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY Plaintiff brought an action for negligence and assault and battery for injuries she sustained when defendant knocked her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant. (Superior Court of San Diego County, No. N39325, Don Martinson, Judge.) The Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Div. One, No. D010463, affirmed.

Plaintiff brought an action for negligence and assault and battery for injuries she sustained when defendant knocked her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant. (Superior Court of San Diego County, No. N39325, Don Martinson, Judge.) The Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Div. One, No. D010463, affirmed.

The Supreme Court affirmed. Addressing the continued viability of the doctrine of implied assumption of risk in light of the adoption of comparative negligence principles, the court held that in cases involving primary assumption of the risk, where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury, the plaintiff’s recovery is completely barred. By contrast, the court held, in cases involving secondary assumption of the risk, where the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter a known risk imposed by the defendant’s breach of duty, the doctrine has been merged into the comparative fault scheme, and the trier of fact, in apportioning the loss resulting from the injury, may consider the relative responsibility of the parties. The court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant, since he did not breach a legal duty of care owed to plaintiff when he engaged in the conduct that injured her and, therefore, her action was barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. At most, the court held, the declarations established that defendant was careless or negligent, and his conduct was not even closely comparable to the type of conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside of the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport, which type of conduct is a prerequisite to the imposition of legal liability upon a participant in such a sport. (Opinion by George, J., with Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J., concurring. Separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Mosk, J. Separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Panelli, J., with Baxter, J., concurring. Separate dissenting opinion by Kennard, J.)

HEADNOTES

CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES

Classified to California Digest of Official Reports

(1a) (1b) (1c) (1d) (1e) Negligence § 37–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Viability in Light of Comparative Negligence Doctrine–Primary Versus Secondary Assumption of Risk: Words, Phrases, and Maxims–Primary Assumption of Risk; Secondary Assumption of Risk. –Primary assumption of the risk, which involves conduct of a defendant that does not breach a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, has not been merged into the comparative negligence system, but continues to operate as a complete bar to a plaintiff’s recovery. This is so because by engaging in such conduct, the defendant has not breached a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, and thus there is no reason to invoke comparative fault principles. By contrast, secondary assumption of risk, which involves a breach of a duty owed to a plaintiff who knowingly encounters a risk of injury caused by that breach, has been merged into the comparative fault system, and a defendant’s liability in such a case is assessed in terms of the percentage of his or her fault. In such a case, the injury may have been caused by the combined effect of the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s culpable conduct, and to retain assumption of risk as a complete defense in such a case would be contrary to the basic principle that when both parties are partially at fault, placing all of the loss on one of the parties is inherently inequitable.

[See 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 1104 et seq.]

(2) Negligence § 48.5–Exercise of Care Toward Particular Persons–Fireman’s Rule. –Under the firefighter’s rule, a person who starts a fire is not liable for an injury sustained by a firefighter who is summoned to fight the fire. The most persuasive explanation for this rule is that the party who negligently started the fire had no legal duty to protect the firefighter from the very danger that he or she is employed to confront. (Per George, J., Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J.)

(3) Negligence § 9–Elements of Actionable Negligence–Duty of Care–Sports Activities–Question for Court. –In cases involving personal injury sustained during sports activities, the question of the existence and scope of a defendant’s duty of care is a legal question that depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties’ general relationship to the activity, and is an issue to be decided by the court rather than the jury. (Per George, J., Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J.)

(4) Negligence § 36–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Comparative Negligence. –The comparative fault doctrine is a flexible, commonsense concept, under which a jury properly may consider and evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury, whether their responsibility rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility, in order to arrive at an equitable apportionment or allocation of loss. (Per George, J., Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J.)

(5) Premises Liability § 6–Owner’s Duty of Care–Dangerous Conditions. –A property owner ordinarily is required to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on his or her property. (Per George, J., Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J.)

(6a) (6b) Premises Liability § 6–Owner’s Duty of Care–Dangerous Conditions–Ski Resorts. –Although moguls on a ski run pose a risk of harm to skiers that might not exist if those configurations were removed, the challenge and risks posed by the moguls are part of the sport of skiing, and a ski resort has no duty to eliminate them. A ski resort does, however, have a duty to use due care to maintain its towropes in a safe, working condition so as not to expose skiers to an increased risk of harm. The latter type of risk, posed by a ski resort’s negligence, clearly is not an inherent risk of the sport assumed by a participant. (Per George, J., Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J.)

(7a) (7b) Negligence § 10–Elements of Actionable Negligence–Standard of Care–Lower Standard for Sports Activities. –Although a defendant generally has no legal duty to eliminate, or to protect a plaintiff against, the risks inherent in a sport, a defendant generally does have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport. In some situations, the careless conduct of others is considered an inherent risk of a sport for which recovery is barred. (Per George, J., Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J.)

(8a) (8b) Negligence § 9–Elements of Actionable Negligence–Duty of Care–Sports Activities–Participant’s Duty of Care. –A sporting event participant is not liable for ordinary careless conduct engaged in during the sport, but only for intentionally injuring another player or engaging in reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport. This is so because in the heat of an active sporting event, a participant’s normal energetic conduct often includes accidentally careless behavior, and vigorous participation in sporting events might be chilled if legal liability were to be imposed on a participant on the basis of his or her ordinary careless conduct. In such a sport, even when a participant’s conduct violates a rule of the game and may subject the violator to internal sanctions prescribed by the sport itself, imposition of legal liability for such conduct might well alter fundamentally the nature of the sport by deterring participants from vigorously engaging in activity that falls close to, but on the permissible side of, a prescribed rule.

(9a) (9b) Negligence § 37–Exercise of Care by Plaintiff–Assumption of Risk–Player Injured in Touch Football Game. –In a touch football player’s action against an opposing player for negligence and assault and battery arising from an injury sustained during a touch football game, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant. Defendant, in engaging in the conduct that injured plaintiff, did not breach a legal duty of care owed to plaintiff and, therefore, plaintiff’s recovery was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The declarations filed in support of and in opposition to the motion established that defendant was, at most, careless or negligent in knocking over plaintiff, stepping on her hand, and injuring her finger. Although plaintiff maintained that defendant’s rough play was reckless, the conduct alleged was not even closely comparable to the type of conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside of the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport, which type of conduct is a prerequisite to the imposition of legal liability upon a participant in such a sport.

COUNSEL: Steven H. Wilhelm for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Daley & Heft, Sarah H. Mason, Dennis W. Daley, Joseph M. Hnylka and Patricia A. Shaffer for Defendant and Respondent.

JUDGES: Opinion by George, J., with Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J., concurring. Separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Mosk, J. Separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Panelli, J., with Baxter, J., concurring. Separate dissenting opinion by Kennard, J.

OPINION BY: GEORGE, J.

OPINION

[*299] [**697] [***3] In this case, and in the companion case of Ford v. Gouin, post, page 339 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 834 P.2d 724], we face the question of the [*300] proper application of the “assumption of risk” doctrine in light of this court’s adoption of comparative fault principles in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226, 78 A.L.R.3d 393]. Although the Li decision itself addressed this issue, subsequent Court of Appeal decisions have differed in their interpretation of Li‘s discussion of this point. We granted review to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeal.

I

We begin with a summary of the facts of this case, as set forth in the declarations and deposition transcripts submitted in support of and in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On January 25, 1987, the day of the 1987 Super Bowl football game, plaintiff Kendra Knight and defendant Michael Jewett, together with a number of other social acquaintances, attended a Super Bowl party at the home of a mutual friend. During half time of the Super Bowl, several guests decided to play an informal game of touch football on an adjoining dirt lot, using a “peewee” football. Each team had four or five players and included both women and men; plaintiff and defendant were on opposing teams. No rules were explicitly discussed before the game.

Five to ten minutes into the game, defendant ran into plaintiff during a play. According to plaintiff, at that point she told defendant “not to play so rough or I was going to have to stop playing.” Her declaration stated that “[defendant] seemed to acknowledge my statement and left me with the impression that he would play less rough prospectively.” In his deposition, defendant recalled that plaintiff had asked him to “be careful,” but did not remember plaintiff saying that she would stop playing.

On the very next play, plaintiff sustained the injuries that gave rise to the present lawsuit. As defendant recalled the incident, his team was on defense on that play, and he jumped up in an attempt to intercept a pass. He touched the ball but did not catch it, and in coming down he collided with plaintiff, knocking her over. When he landed, he stepped backward onto plaintiff’s right hand, injuring her hand and little finger.

Both plaintiff and Andrea Starr, another participant in the game who was on the [**698] [***4] same team as plaintiff, recalled the incident differently from defendant. According to their declarations, at the time plaintiff was injured, Starr already had caught the pass. Defendant was running toward Starr, when he ran into plaintiff from behind, knocked her down, and stepped on her hand. Starr also stated that, after knocking plaintiff down, defendant continued [*301] running until he tagged Starr, “which tag was hard enough to cause me to lose my balance, resulting in a twisting or spraining of my ankle.”

The game ended with plaintiff’s injury, and plaintiff sought treatment shortly thereafter. After three operations failed to restore the movement in her little finger or to relieve the ongoing pain of the injury, plaintiff’s finger was amputated. Plaintiff then instituted the present proceeding, seeking damages from defendant on theories of negligence and assault and battery.

After filing an answer, defendant moved for summary judgment. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Ordway v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 98 [243 Cal.Rptr. 536], defendant maintained that “reasonable implied assumption of risk” continues to operate as a complete defense after Li v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, 13 Cal.3d 804 (hereafter Li), and that plaintiff’s action was barred under that doctrine. In this regard, defendant asserted that “[b]y participating in [the touch football game that resulted in her injury], plaintiff … impliedly agreed to reduce the duty of care owed to her by defendant … to only a duty to avoid reckless or intentionally harmful conduct,” and that the undisputed facts established both that he did not intend to injure plaintiff and that the acts of defendant which resulted in plaintiff’s injury were not reckless. In support of his motion, defendant submitted his own declaration setting forth his version of the incident, as summarized above, and specifically stating that he did not intend to step on plaintiff’s hand or to injure her. Defendant also attached a copy of plaintiff’s deposition in which plaintiff acknowledged that she frequently watched professional football on television and thus was generally familiar with the risks associated with the sport of football, and in which she conceded that she had no reason to believe defendant had any intention of stepping on her hand or injuring her.

In opposing the summary judgment motion, plaintiff first noted that, in contrast to the Ordway decision, the Court of Appeal decision in Segoviano v. Housing Authority (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 162 [191 Cal.Rptr. 578] specifically held that the doctrine of “reasonable implied assumption of risk” had been eliminated by the adoption of comparative fault principles, and thus under Segoviano the basic premise of defendant’s summary judgment motion was untenable and plaintiff was entitled to have the lawsuit proceed under comparative fault principles.

Furthermore, plaintiff maintained that even were the trial court inclined to follow the Ordway decision, there were numerous disputed material facts that precluded the granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant. First, plaintiff noted there was a clear dispute between defendant’s and [*302] plaintiff’s recollection of the specific facts of the play in which plaintiff was injured, and, in particular, of the details of defendant’s conduct that caused plaintiff’s injury. She claimed that under the facts as described by plaintiff and Starr, defendant’s conduct was at least reckless.

Second, plaintiff vigorously disputed defendant’s claim that, by participating in the game in question, she impliedly had agreed to reduce the duty of care, owed to her by defendant, to only a duty to avoid reckless or intentionally harmful conduct. Plaintiff maintained in her declaration that in view of the casual, social setting, the circumstance that women and men were joint participants in the game, and the rough dirt surface on which the game was played, she anticipated from the outset that it was the kind of “mock” football game in which there would be no forceful pushing or hard hitting or shoving. Plaintiff also asserted that the declarations and depositions of other players in the game, included in her opposition papers, demonstrated that the other participants, including defendant, [**699] [***5] shared her expectations and assumptions that the game was to be a “mellow” one and not a serious, competitive athletic event. 1 Plaintiff claimed that there had been no injuries during touch football games in which she had participated on previous occasions, and that in view of the circumstances under which the game was played, “[t]he only type of injury which I reasonably anticipated would have been something in the nature of a bruise or bump.”

1 The portion of defendant’s deposition attached to plaintiff’s opposition included the following passage:

“Q: …. [F]rom your perspective–and I asked this same question of both of your friends yesterday–is the standard of care in which you were going to be dealing with people out there in the play field different, in your opinion, when you’re playing in that kind of a game, that is, the one that happened on that day versus if you’re out there playing in the exact same place and with a bunch of guys and no girls.

“A: Yeah, it would be different. Yes.

“Q: So, theoretically, you should be much more careful when the women are out there than if it was a bunch of guys?

“A: Right.”

In addition, in further support of her claim that there was at least a factual dispute as to whether she impliedly had agreed to assume the risk of injury from the type of rough play defendant assertedly engaged in, plaintiff relied on the portion of her declaration in which she stated that (1) she specifically had told defendant, immediately prior to the play in question, that defendant was playing too rough and that she would not continue to play in the game if he was going to continue such conduct, and (2) defendant had given plaintiff the impression he would refrain from such conduct. Plaintiff maintained that her statement during the game established that a disputed factual issue existed as to whether she voluntarily had chosen to assume the risks of the type of conduct allegedly engaged in by defendant.

[*303] In his reply to plaintiff’s opposition, defendant acknowledged there were some factual details–“who ran where, when and how”–that were in dispute. He contended, however, that the material facts were not in dispute, stating those facts were “that plaintiff was injured in the context of playing touch football.”

After considering the parties’ submissions, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, recognizing the existing conflict in appellate court decisions with regard to the so-called “reasonable implied assumption of risk” doctrine, concluded that Ordway v. Superior Court, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, rather than Segoviano v. Housing Authority, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 162, should be followed, and further concluded that under the Ordway decision there were no disputed material facts to be determined. The Court of Appeal, holding that the trial court properly had granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, affirmed the judgment.

As noted, we granted review to resolve the conflict among Court of Appeal decisions as to the proper application of the assumption of risk doctrine in light of the adoption of comparative fault principles in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804.

II

As every leading tort treatise has explained, the assumption of risk doctrine long has caused confusion both in definition and application, because the phrase “assumption of risk” traditionally has been used in a number of very different factual settings involving analytically distinct legal concepts. (See, e.g., Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 68, pp. 480-481; 4 Harper et al., The Law of Torts (2d ed. 1986) § 21.0, pp. 187-189; Schwartz, Comparative Negligence (2d ed. 1986) § 9.1, p. 154; 3 Speiser et al., The American Law of Torts (1986) § 12:46- 12:47, pp. 636-640.) Indeed, almost a half-century ago, Justice Frankfurter described the term “assumption of risk” as a classic example of a felicitous phrase, “undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas,” and whose uncritical use “bedevils the law.” ( Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (1943) 318 U.S. 54, 68 [87 L.Ed. 610, 618, 63 [***6] S. [**700] Ct. 444, 143 A.L.R. 967] (conc. opn. of Frankfurter, J.).)

In some settings–for example, most cases involving sports-related injuries–past assumption of risk decisions largely have been concerned with defining the contours of the legal duty that a given class of defendants–for example, owners of baseball stadiums or ice hockey rinks–owed to an [*304] injured plaintiff. (See, e.g., Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 725, 729 [46 P.2d 144] [baseball stadium owner]; [***16] Shurman v. Fresno Ice Rink (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 469, 474-477 [205 P.2d 77] [hockey rink owner].) In other settings, the assumption of risk terminology historically was applied to situations in which it was clear that the defendant had breached a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, and the inquiry focused on whether the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily had chosen to encounter the specific risk of harm posed by the defendant’s breach of duty. (See, e.g., Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service (1963) 60 Cal.2d 266, 271 [32 Cal.Rptr. 193, 383 P.2d 777] [plaintiff hit in eye by flying piece of metal in area adjacent to drilling]; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162 [265 P.2d 904] [plaintiff injured on wet sidewalk on store premises].)

Prior to the adoption of comparative fault principles of liability, there often was no need to distinguish between the different categories of assumption of risk cases, because if a case fell into either category, the plaintiff’s recovery was totally barred. With the adoption of comparative fault, however, it became essential to differentiate between the distinct categories of cases that traditionally had been lumped together under the rubric of assumption of risk. This court’s seminal comparative fault decision in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, explicitly recognized the need for such differentiation, and attempted to explain which category of assumption of risk cases should be merged into the comparative fault system and which category should not. Accordingly, in considering the current viability of the assumption of risk doctrine in California, our analysis necessarily begins with the Li decision.

In Li, our court undertook a basic reexamination of the common law doctrine of contributory negligence. As Li noted, contributory negligence generally has been defined as ” ‘conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm.’ ” ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 809, quoting Rest.2d Torts, § 463.) Prior to Li, the common law rule was that ” ‘[e]xcept where the defendant has the last clear chance, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence bars recovery against a defendant whose negligent conduct would otherwise make him liable to the plaintiff for the harm sustained by him.’ ” ( Li, supra, at pp. 809-810, italics added, quoting Rest.2d Torts, § 467.)

In Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, we observed that “[i]t is unnecessary for us to catalogue the enormous amount of critical comment that has been directed over the years against the ‘all-or-nothing’ approach of the doctrine of contributory negligence. The essence of that criticism has been constant and [*305] clear: the doctrine is inequitable in its operation because it fails to distribute responsibility in proportion to fault …. The basic objection to the doctrine–grounded in the primal concept that in a system in which liability is based on fault, the extent of fault should govern the extent of liability–remains irresistible to reason and all intelligent notions of fairness.” (Id. at pp. 810-811, italics added.) After taking additional note of the untoward practical consequences of the doctrine in the litigation of cases and the increasing rejection of the doctrine in other jurisdictions, the Li court concluded that “[w]e are likewise persuaded that logic, practical experience, and fundamental justice counsel against the retention of the doctrine rendering contributory negligence a complete bar to recovery–and that it should be replaced in this [**701] state by a [***7] system under which liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault.” (Id. at pp. 812-813.)

After determining that the “all-or-nothing” contributory negligence doctrine should be replaced by a system of comparative negligence, the Li court went on to undertake a rather extensive discussion of the effect that the adoption of comparative negligence would have on a number of related tort doctrines, including the doctrines of last clear chance and assumption of risk. ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 823-826.)

Under the last clear chance doctrine, a defendant was rendered totally liable for an injury, even though the plaintiff’s contributory negligence had played a role in the accident, when the defendant had the “last clear chance” to avoid the accident. With regard to that doctrine, the Li decision, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, observed: “Although several states which apply comparative negligence concepts retain the last clear chance doctrine [citation], the better reasoned position seems to be that when true comparative negligence is adopted, the need for last clear chance as a palliative of the hardships of the ‘all-or-nothing’ rule disappears and its retention results only in a windfall to the plaintiff in direct contravention of the principle of liability in proportion to fault. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 824.) Accordingly, the court concluded that the doctrine should be “subsumed under the general process of assessing liability in proportion to fault.” (Id. at p. 826.)

(1a) With respect to the effect of the adoption of comparative negligence on the assumption of risk doctrine–the issue before us today–the Li decision, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, stated as follows: “As for assumption of risk, we have recognized in this state that this defense overlaps that of contributory negligence to some extent and in fact is made up of at least two distinct defenses. ‘To simplify greatly, it has been observed … that in one kind of situation, to wit, where a plaintiff unreasonably undertakes to encounter a [*306] specific known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence, plaintiff’s conduct, although he may encounter that risk in a prudent manner, is in reality a form of contributory negligence …. Other kinds of situations within the doctrine of assumption of risk are those, for example, where plaintiff is held to agree to relieve defendant of an obligation of reasonable conduct toward him. Such a situation would not involve contributory negligence, but rather a reduction of defendant’s duty of care.’ ( Grey v. Fibreboard Paper Products Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 240, 245-246 [53 Cal.Rptr. 545, 418 P.2d 153]; see also Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361, 368-369 [104 Cal.Rptr. 566]; see generally, 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law [(8th ed. 1974)], Torts, § 723, pp. 3013-3014; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts [(1st ed. 1956)] § 21.1, pp. 1162-1168; cf. Prosser, Torts [(4th ed. 1971)] § 68, pp. 439-441.) We think it clear that the adoption of a system of comparative negligence should entail the merger of the defense of assumption of risk into the general scheme of assessment of liability in proportion to fault in those particular cases in which the form of assumption of risk involved is no more than a variant of contributory negligence. (See generally, Schwartz, [Comparative Negligence (1st ed. 1974)] ch. 9, pp. 153-175.)” ( Li. supra, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 824-825, original italics.)

As this passage indicates, the Li decision, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, clearly contemplated that the assumption of risk doctrine was to be partially merged or subsumed into the comparative negligence scheme. Subsequent Court of Appeal decisions have disagreed, however, in interpreting Li, as to what category of assumption of risk cases would be merged into the comparative negligence scheme.

A number of appellate decisions, focusing on the language in Li indicating that assumption of risk is in reality a form [**702] [***8] of contributory negligence “where a plaintiff unreasonably undertakes to encounter a specific known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence” (13 Cal.3d at p. 824), have concluded that Li properly should be interpreted as drawing a distinction between those assumption of risk cases in which a plaintiff “unreasonably” encounters a known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence and those assumption of risk cases in which a plaintiff “reasonably” encounters a known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence. (See, e.g., Ordway v. Superior Court, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 103-105.) These decisions interpret Li as subsuming into the comparative fault scheme those cases in which the plaintiff acts unreasonably in encountering a specific known risk, but retaining the assumption of risk doctrine as a complete bar to recovery in those cases in which the plaintiff acts reasonably in encountering such a risk. Although aware of the apparent anomaly of a rule under which a plaintiff who acts reasonably is completely barred from recovery while a plaintiff who acts unreasonably [*307] only has his or her recovery reduced, these decisions nonetheless have concluded that this distinction and consequence were intended by the Li court. 2

2 In Ordway v. Superior Court, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, the court suggested that the differentiation in the treatment accorded reasonable and unreasonable plaintiffs under an approach viewing “reasonable implied assumption of risk” as a complete bar to recovery was only “superficially anomalous” (Id. at p. 104), and could be explained by reference to “the expectation of the defendant. He or she is permitted to ignore reasonably assumed risks and is not required to take extraordinary precautions with respect to them. The defendant must, however, anticipate that some risks will be unreasonably undertaken, and a failure to guard against these may result in liability.” (Id. at p. 105.)

Even when the matter is viewed from the defendant’s perspective, however, this suggested dichotomy is illogical and untenable. From the standpoint of a potential defendant, it is far more logical to require that the defendant take precautions with respect to risks that the defendant reasonably can foresee being undertaken, than it would be to impose liability only for risks that the defendant is less likely to anticipate will be encountered.

Ordway also attempted to explain the anomaly by reformulating the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable assumption of risk as one between plaintiffs who make a “knowing and intelligent” choice and those who act “negligent[ly] or careless[ly]” ( Ordway v. Superior Court, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 105), and the dissenting opinion cites this reformulated terminology with approval. (See dis. opn. by Kennard, J., post, p. 332.) The Li decision, however, specifically subsumed within comparative fault those assumption of risk cases in which a defendant ” ‘unreasonably undertakes to encounter a specific known risk’ ” ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 824, italics omitted and added), i.e., cases in which a defendant makes a knowing, but unreasonable, choice to undertake a risk. Indeed, in recasting the “unreasonable” assumption of risk category to include only those cases in which the plaintiff merely was careless and did not act with actual knowledge of the risk, Ordway inadvertently redefined the unreasonable assumption of risk category out of existence. The pre-Li decisions clearly held that where a plaintiff was injured as the result of a defendant’s breach of duty, the assumption of risk doctrine applied only to those instances in which the plaintiff actually knew of and appreciated the specific risk and nonetheless chose to encounter the risk. (See, e.g., Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra, 60 Cal.2d 266, 271 [“Actual, and not merely constructive, knowledge of the danger is required.”].)

In our view, these decisions–regardless whether they reached the correct result on the facts at issue–have misinterpreted Li by suggesting that our decision contemplated less favorable legal treatment for a plaintiff who reasonably encounters a known risk than for a plaintiff who unreasonably encounters such a risk. Although the relevant passage in Li indicates that the assumption of risk doctrine would be merged into the comparative fault scheme in instances in which a plaintiff ” ‘unreasonably undertakes to encounter a specific known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence’ ” (13 Cal.3d at p. 824), nothing in this passage suggests that the assumption of risk doctrine should survive as a total bar to the plaintiff’s recovery whenever a plaintiff acts reasonably in encountering such a risk. Instead, this portion of our opinion expressly contrasts the category of assumption of risk cases which ” ‘involve contributory negligence’ ” (and which therefore [**703] [***9] should be merged into the comparative fault scheme) with those assumption of risk [*308] cases which involve ” ‘a reduction of defendant’s duty of care.’ ” (Id. at p. 825.)

Indeed, particularly when the relevant passage in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d at pages 824-825, is read as a whole and in conjunction with the authorities it cites, we believe it becomes clear that the distinction in assumption of risk cases to which the Li court referred in this passage was not a distinction between instances in which a plaintiff unreasonably encounters a known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence and instances in which a plaintiff reasonably encounters such a risk. Rather, the distinction to which the Li court referred was between (1) those instances in which the assumption of risk doctrine embodies a legal conclusion that there is “no duty” on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk–the category of assumption of risk that the legal commentators generally refer to as “primary assumption of risk”–and (2) those instances in which the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff but the plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk of injury caused by the defendant’s breach of that duty–what most commentators have termed “secondary assumption of risk.” 3 Properly interpreted, the relevant passage in Li provides that the category of assumption of risk cases that is not merged into the comparative negligence system and in which the plaintiff’s recovery continues to be completely barred involves those cases in which the defendant’s conduct did not breach a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, i.e., “primary assumption of risk” cases, whereas cases involving “secondary assumption of risk” properly are merged into the comprehensive comparative fault system adopted in Li. 4

3 The introductory passage from the Harper and James treatise on The Law of Torts, that was cited with approval in Li, stated in this regard: “The term assumption of risk has led to no little confusion because it is used to refer to at least two different concepts, which largely overlap, have a common cultural background, and often produce the same legal result. But these concepts are nevertheless quite distinct rules involving slightly different policies and different conditions for their application. (1) In its primary sense the plaintiff’s assumption of a risk is only the counterpart of the defendant’s lack of duty to protect the plaintiff from that risk. In such a case plaintiff may not recover for his injury even though he was quite reasonable in encountering the risk that caused it. Volenti non fit injuria. (2) A plaintiff may also be said to assume a risk created by defendant’s breach of duty towards him, when he deliberately chooses to encounter that risk. In such a case, except possibly in master and servant cases, plaintiff will be barred from recovery only if he was unreasonable in encountering the risk under the circumstances. This is a form of contributory negligence. Hereafter we shall call this ‘assumption of risk in a secondary sense.’ ” (2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts (1st ed. 1956) § 21.1, p. 1162, fns. omitted, cited in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 825.)

4 Although in the academic literature “express assumption of risk” often has been designated as a separate, contract-based species of assumption of risk distinct from both primary and secondary assumption of risk (see, e.g., Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 68, p. 496), cases involving express assumption of risk are concerned with instances in which, as the result of an express agreement, the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from an injury-causing risk. Thus in this respect express assumption of risk properly can be viewed as analogous to primary assumption of risk. One leading treatise describes express assumption of risk in the following terms: “In its most basic sense, assumption of risk means that the plaintiff, in advance, has given his express consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him, and to take his chances of injury from a known risk arising from what the defendant is to do or leave undone …. The result is that the defendant is relieved of legal duty to the plaintiff; and being under no duty, he cannot be charged with negligence.” (Prosser & Keeton on Torts, supra, § 68, pp. 480-481, fn. omitted, second italics added.)

Since Li, California cases uniformly have recognized that so long as an express assumption of risk agreement does not violate public policy (see, e.g., Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, 95-101 [32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 6 A.L.R.3d 693]), such an agreement operates to relieve the defendant of a legal duty to the plaintiff with respect to the risks encompassed by the agreement and, where applicable, to bar completely the plaintiff’s cause of action. (See, e.g., Madison v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 589, 597-602 [250 Cal.Rptr. 299], and cases cited.)

[*309] Although the difference between the “primary assumption of risk”/”secondary [**704] [***10] assumption of risk” nomenclature and the “reasonable implied assumption of risk”/”unreasonable implied assumption of risk” terminology embraced in many of the recent Court of Appeal decisions may appear at first blush to be only semantic, the significance extends beyond mere rhetoric. First, in “primary assumption of risk” cases–where the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk of harm–a plaintiff who has suffered such harm is not entitled to recover from the defendant, whether the plaintiff’s conduct in undertaking the activity was reasonable or unreasonable. Second, in “secondary assumption of risk” cases–involving instances in which the defendant has breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff–the defendant is not entitled to be entirely relieved of liability for an injury proximately caused by such breach, simply because the plaintiff’s conduct in encountering the risk of such an injury was reasonable rather than unreasonable. Third and finally, the question whether the defendant owed a legal duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk of harm does not turn on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct, but rather on the nature of the activity or sport in which the defendant is engaged and the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport. (2) (See fn. 5) For these reasons, use of the “reasonable implied assumption of risk”/”unreasonable implied assumption of risk” terminology, as a means of differentiating between the cases in which a plaintiff is barred from bringing an action and those in which he or she is not barred, is more misleading than helpful. 5

5 In addition to the sports setting, the primary assumption of risk doctrine also comes into play in the category of cases often described as involving the “firefighter’s rule.” (See Terhell v. American Commonwealth Associates (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 434, 437 [218 Cal.Rptr. 256].) In its most classic form, the firefighter’s rule involves the question whether a person who negligently has started a fire is liable for an injury sustained by a firefighter who is summoned to fight the fire; the rule provides that the person who started the fire is not liable under such circumstances. (See, e.g., Walters v. Sloan (1977) 20 Cal.3d 199, 202 [142 Cal.Rptr. 152, 571 P.2d 609].) Although a number of theories have been cited to support this conclusion, the most persuasive explanation is that the party who negligently started the fire had no legal duty to protect the firefighter from the very danger that the firefighter is employed to confront. (See, e.g., Baker v. Superior Court (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 710, 719-721 [181 Cal.Rptr. 311]; Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, 714 [211 Cal.Rptr. 668]. See generally 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 739, pp. 69-70 [discussing rule as one illustration of duty approach]; Anicet v. Gant (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1991) 580 So.2d 273, 276 [“a person specifically hired to encounter and combat particular dangers is owed no independent tort duty by those who have created those dangers ….”].) Because the defendant in such a case owes no duty to protect the firefighter from such risks, the firefighter has no cause of action even if the risk created by the fire was so great that a trier of fact could find it was unreasonable for the firefighter to choose to encounter the risk. This example again demonstrates that primary assumption of risk is not the same as “reasonable implied assumption of risk.”

[*310] (1b) Our reading of Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, insofar as it draws a distinction between assumption of risk cases in which the defendant has not breached any legal duty to the plaintiff and those in which the defendant has breached a legal duty, is supported not only by the language of Li itself and the authorities it cites, but also, and perhaps most significantly, by the fundamental principle that led the Li court to replace the all-or-nothing contributory negligence defense with a comparative fault scheme. In “primary assumption of risk” cases, it is consistent with comparative fault principles totally to bar a plaintiff from pursuing a cause of action, because when the defendant has not breached a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant has not committed any conduct which would warrant the imposition of any liability whatsoever, and thus there is no occasion at all for invoking comparative fault principles. (See Prosser & Keeton on Torts, supra, § 68, at pp. 496-497.) By contrast, in the “secondary assumption of risk” context, the defendant has breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. When a risk of harm is created or imposed by a defendant’s breach of duty, and a plaintiff who chose to encounter the risk is injured, comparative fault principles preclude automatically placing [**705] [***11] all of the loss on the plaintiff, because the injury in such a case may have been caused by the combined effect of the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s culpable conduct. To retain assumption of risk as a complete defense in such a case would fly in the face of Li‘s basic holding that when both parties are partially at fault for an injury, a rule which places all of the loss on one of the parties is inherently inequitable. (See id. at pp. 497-498.)

Thus, just as the court in Li reasoned it would be improper to retain the last clear chance doctrine as a means of imposing all liability on a defendant in cases in which the defendant is aware of the risk of harm created by the plaintiff’s negligence but fails to take the “last clear chance” to avoid the injury ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 824), we believe the Li court similarly recognized that, in the assumption of risk context, it would be improper to [*311] impose all responsibility on a plaintiff who is aware of a risk of harm created by the defendant’s breach of duty but fails to avert the harm. In both instances, comparative fault principles call for a sharing of the burden of liability.

The dissenting opinion suggests, however, that, even when a defendant has breached its duty of care to the plaintiff, a plaintiff who reasonably has chosen to encounter a known risk of harm imposed by such a breach may be totally precluded from recovering any damages, without doing violence to comparative fault principles, on the theory that the plaintiff, by proceeding in the face of a known risk, has “impliedly consented” to any harm. (See dis. opn. by Kennard, J., post, pp. 331-333.) For a number of reasons, we conclude this contention does not withstand analysis.

First, the argument that a plaintiff who proceeds to encounter a known risk has “impliedly consented” to absolve a negligent defendant of liability for any ensuing harm logically would apply as much to a plaintiff who unreasonably has chosen to encounter a known risk, as to a plaintiff who reasonably has chosen to encounter such a risk. As we have seen, however, Li explicitly held that a plaintiff who ” ‘unreasonably undertakes to encounter a specific known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence’ ” ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 824) is not completely barred from recovery; instead, the recovery of such a plaintiff simply is reduced under comparative fault principles. Thus, the dissenting opinion’s implied consent argument is irreconcilable with Li itself.

Second, the implied consent rationale rests on a legal fiction that is untenable, at least as applied to conduct that represents a breach of the defendant’s duty of care to the plaintiff. It may be accurate to suggest that an individual who voluntarily engages in a potentially dangerous activity or sport “consents to” or “agrees to assume” the risks inherent in the activity or sport itself, such as the risks posed to a snow skier by moguls on a ski slope or the risks posed to a water skier by wind-whipped waves on a lake. But it is thoroughly unrealistic to suggest that, by engaging in a potentially dangerous activity or sport, an individual consents to (or agrees to excuse) a breach of duty by others that increases the risks inevitably posed by the activity or sport itself, even where the participating individual is aware of the possibility that such misconduct may occur.

A familiar example may help demonstrate this point. Although every driver of an automobile is aware that driving is a potentially hazardous activity and that inherent in the act of driving is the risk that he or she will be injured by the negligent driving of another, a person who voluntarily [*312] chooses to drive does not thereby “impliedly consent” to being injured by the negligence of another, nor has such a person “impliedly excused” others from performing their duty to use due care for the driver’s safety. Instead, the driver reasonably expects that if he or she is injured by another’s negligence, i.e., by the breach of the other person’s duty to use due care, the driver will be entitled to compensation for his or her injuries. Similarly, although a patient who undergoes elective surgery is aware that inherent in such an operation is the risk of injury in the event the surgeon [**706] [***12] is negligent, the patient, by voluntarily encountering such a risk, does not “impliedly consent” to negligently inflicted injury or “impliedly agree” to excuse the surgeon from a normal duty of care, but rather justifiably expects that the surgeon will be liable in the event of medical malpractice.

Thus, there is no merit to the dissenting opinion’s general claim that simply because a person is aware an activity involves a risk of harm that may arise from another’s negligence and voluntarily proceeds to participate in that activity despite such knowledge, that person should be barred from obtaining any recovery on the theory that he or she impliedly consented to the risk of harm. As we shall discuss in part III, legal liability for an injury which occurs during a sporting event is significantly affected by the assumption of risk doctrine, but only because the doctrine has been utilized in framing the duty of care owed by a defendant in the context of a sporting event, and not because the plaintiff in such a case has, in any realistic sense of the term, “consented” to relieve the defendant of liability.

Third, the dissenting opinion’s claim that the category of cases in which the assumption of risk doctrine operates to bar a plaintiff’s cause of action after Li properly should be gauged on the basis of an implied consent analysis, rather than on the duty analysis we have described above, is, in our view, untenable for another reason. In support of its implied consent theory, the dissenting opinion relies on a number of pre-Li cases, which arose in the “secondary assumption of risk” context, and which held that, in such a context, application of the assumption of risk doctrine was dependent on proof that the particular plaintiff subjectively knew, rather than simply should have known, of both the existence and magnitude of the specific risk of harm imposed by the defendant’s negligence. (See Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra, 60 Cal.2d 266, 271- 275; Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d 158, 161-162.) Consequently, as the dissenting opinion acknowledges, were its implied consent theory to govern application of the assumption of risk doctrine in the sports setting, the basic liability of a defendant who engages in a sport would depend on variable factors that the defendant frequently would have no way of ascertaining (for example, the particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge and expectations), rather than on [*313] the nature of the sport itself. As a result, there would be drastic disparities in the manner in which the law would treat defendants who engaged in precisely the same conduct, based on the often unknown, subjective expectations of the particular plaintiff who happened to be injured by the defendant’s conduct.

Such an approach not only would be inconsistent with the principles of fairness underlying the Li decision, but also would be inimical to the fair and efficient administration of justice. If the application of the assumption of risk doctrine in a sports setting turned on the particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge and awareness, summary judgment rarely would be available in such cases, for, as the present case reveals, it frequently will be easy to raise factual questions with regard to a particular plaintiff’s subjective expectations as to the existence and magnitude of the risks the plaintiff voluntarily chose to encounter. (3) By contrast, [HN1] the question of the existence and scope of a defendant’s duty of care is a legal question which depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties’ general relationship to the activity, and is an issue to be decided by the court, rather than the jury. (See, e.g., 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, § 748, pp. 83-86 and cases cited.) Thus, the question of assumption of risk is much more amenable to resolution by summary judgment under a duty analysis than under the dissenting opinion’s suggested implied consent approach.

(1c) An amicus curiae in the companion case has questioned, on a separate ground, the duty approach to the post-Li assumption of risk doctrine, suggesting that if a plaintiff’s action may go forward whenever a defendant’s breach of duty has played some role, however minor, in a plaintiff’s [**707] [***13] injury, a plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a highly dangerous sport–for example, skydiving or mountain climbing–will escape any responsibility for the injury so long as a jury finds that the plaintiff was not “unreasonable” in engaging in the sport. This argument rests on the premise that, under comparative fault principles, a jury may assign some portion of the responsibility for an injury to a plaintiff only if the jury finds that the plaintiff acted unreasonably, but not if the jury finds that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily, but reasonably, chose to engage in a dangerous activity. Amicus curiae contends that such a rule frequently would permit voluntary risk takers to avoid all responsibility for their own actions, and would impose an improper and undue burden on other participants.

Although we agree with the general thesis of amicus curiae’s argument that persons generally should bear personal responsibility for their own actions, the suggestion that a duty approach to the doctrine of assumption of risk is inconsistent with this thesis rests on a mistaken premise. (4) Past [*314] California cases have made it clear that [HN2] the “comparative fault” doctrine is a flexible, commonsense concept, under which a jury properly may consider and evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury (whether their responsibility for the injury rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility), in order to arrive at an “equitable apportionment or allocation of loss.” (See Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 734-742 [144 Cal.Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162]; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d 322, 328-332 [146 Cal.Rptr. 550, 579 P.2d 441]; Far West Financial Corp. v. D & S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 804, fn. 7 [251 Cal.Rptr. 202, 760 P.2d 399].)

(1d) Accordingly, contrary to amicus curiae’s assumption, we believe that under California’s comparative fault doctrine, a jury in a “secondary assumption of risk” case would be entitled to take into consideration a plaintiff’s voluntary action in choosing to engage in an unusually risky sport, whether or not the plaintiff’s decision to encounter the risk should be characterized as unreasonable, in determining whether the plaintiff properly should bear some share of responsibility for the injuries he or she suffered. (See, e.g., Kirk v. Washington State University (1987) 109 Wn.2d 448 [746 P.2d 285, 290-291]. See generally Schwartz, Comparative Negligence, supra, § 9.5, p. 180; Diamond, Assumption of Risk After Comparative Negligence: Integrating Contract Theory into Tort Doctrine (1991) 52 Ohio St. L.J. 717, 748-749.) Thus, [HN3] in a case in which an injury has been caused by both a defendant’s breach of a legal duty to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s voluntary decision to engage in an unusually risky sport, application of comparative fault principles will not operate to relieve either individual of responsibility for his or her actions, but rather will ensure that neither party will escape such responsibility.

It may be helpful at this point to summarize our general conclusions as to the current state of the doctrine of assumption of risk in light of the adoption of comparative fault principles in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, general conclusions that reflect the view of a majority of the justices of the court (i.e., the three justices who have signed this opinion and Justice Mosk (see conc. and dis. opn. by Mosk, J., post, p. 321)). 6 [HN4] In cases involving “primary assumption of [**708] [***14] risk”–where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ [*315] relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury–the doctrine continues to operate as a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery. [HN5] In cases involving “secondary assumption of risk”–where the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter a known risk imposed by the defendant’s breach of duty–the doctrine is merged into the comparative fault scheme, and the trier of fact, in apportioning the loss resulting from the injury, may consider the relative responsibility of the parties.

6 Although Justice Mosk agrees that, in this context, a defendant’s liability should be analyzed under a duty analysis, he is of the view that the “primary” and “secondary” assumption of risk terminology is potentially confusing and would prefer entirely to eliminate the doctrine of implied assumption of risk as a bar to recovery and simply to apply comparative fault principles to determine liability. (See conc. and dis. opn. by Mosk, J., post, pp. 321-322.) Because the Li decision, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 824-825, indicated that the preexisting assumption of risk doctrine was to be only partially merged into the comparative fault system, the analysis set forth in the present opinion (distinguishing between primary and secondary assumption of risk) in our view more closely reflects the Li holding than does Justice Mosk’s proposal.

Accordingly, in determining the propriety of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in this case, our inquiry does not turn on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of plaintiff’s conduct in choosing to subject herself to the risks of touch football or in continuing to participate in the game after she became aware of defendant’s allegedly rough play. Nor do we focus upon whether there is a factual dispute with regard to whether plaintiff subjectively knew of, and voluntarily chose to encounter, the risk of defendant’s conduct, or impliedly consented to relieve or excuse defendant from any duty of care to her. Instead, our resolution of this issue turns on whether, in light of the nature of the sporting activity in which defendant and plaintiff were engaged, defendant’s conduct breached a legal duty of care to plaintiff. We now turn to that question.

III

[HN6] As a general rule, persons have a duty to use due care to avoid injury to others, and may be held liable if their careless conduct injures another person. (See Civ. Code, § 1714 .) (5) Thus, for example, a property owner ordinarily is required to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on his or her property. (See, e.g., Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496].) In the sports setting, however, conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an integral part of the sport itself. (6a) Thus, although moguls on a ski run pose a risk of harm to skiers that might not exist were these configurations removed, the challenge and risks posed by the moguls are part of the sport of skiing, and a ski resort has no duty to eliminate them. (See generally Annot. (1987) 55 A.L.R.4th 632.) In this respect, the nature of a sport is highly relevant in defining the duty of care owed by the particular defendant.

(7a) [HN7] Although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well [*316] established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport. (6b) Thus, although a ski resort has no duty to remove moguls from a ski run, it clearly does have a duty to use due care to maintain its towropes in a safe, working condition so as not to expose skiers to an increased risk of harm. The cases establish that the latter type of risk, posed by a ski resort’s negligence, clearly is not a risk (inherent in the sport) that is assumed by a participant. (See generally Annot. (1979) 95 A.L.R.3d 203.)

(7b) In some situations, however, the careless conduct of others is treated as an “inherent risk” of a sport, thus barring recovery by the plaintiff. For example, numerous cases recognize that in a game of baseball, a player generally cannot recover if he or she is hit and injured by a carelessly thrown ball (see, e.g., Mann v. Nutrilite, Inc. (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 729, 734-735 [289 P.2d 282]), and that in a game of basketball, recovery is not permitted for an injury caused by a carelessly extended elbow (see, e.g., Thomas v. Barlow (1927) 5 N.J. Misc. 764 [138 A. 208]). The divergent results of the foregoing cases lead naturally to the question how courts are to determine when careless conduct of another properly should [***15] be considered an “inherent [**709] risk” of the sport that (as a matter of law) is assumed by the injured participant.

Contrary to the implied consent approach to the doctrine of assumption of risk, discussed above, the duty approach provides an answer which does not depend on the particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge or appreciation of the potential risk. Even where the plaintiff, who falls while skiing over a mogul, is a total novice and lacks any knowledge of skiing whatsoever, the ski resort would not be liable for his or her injuries. (See Brown v. San Francisco Baseball Club (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 484, 488- 492 [222 P.2d 19] [baseball spectator’s alleged ignorance of the game did not warrant imposing liability on stadium owner for injury caused by a carelessly thrown ball].) And, on the other hand, even where the plaintiff actually is aware that a particular ski resort on occasion has been negligent in maintaining its towropes, that knowledge would not preclude the skier from recovering if he or she were injured as a result of the resort’s repetition of such deficient conduct. In the latter context, although the plaintiff may have acted with knowledge of the potential negligence, he or she did not consent to such negligent conduct or agree to excuse the resort from liability in the event of such negligence.

Rather than being dependent on the knowledge or consent of the particular plaintiff, resolution of the question of the defendant’s liability in such cases turns on whether the defendant had a legal duty to avoid such conduct or to [*317] protect the plaintiff against a particular risk of harm. As already noted, the nature of a defendant’s duty in the sports context depends heavily on the nature of the sport itself. Additionally, the scope of the legal duty owed by a defendant frequently will also depend on the defendant’s role in, or relationship to, the sport.

The latter point is demonstrated by a review of one of the numerous cases involving an injury sustained by a spectator at a baseball game. In Ratcliff v. San Diego Baseball Club (1938) 27 Cal.App.2d 733 [81 P.2d 625], a baseball spectator was injured when, walking in the stands between home plate and first base during a game, she was hit by an accidentally thrown bat. She sued both the player who threw the bat and the baseball stadium owner. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the player, but found the stadium owner liable. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Had the Ratcliff court utilized an implied consent analysis, the court would have looked only to the knowledge of the particular plaintiff (the spectator) to determine whether the risk of being hit by an accidentally thrown bat was an inherent risk of the sport of baseball assumed by the plaintiff, and would have treated the plaintiff’s action against both defendants similarly with regard to such risk. The Ratcliff court did not analyze the case in that manner, however. Instead, the court implicitly recognized that two different potential duties were at issue–(1) the duty of the ballplayer to play the game without carelessly throwing his bat, and (2) the duty of the stadium owner to provide a reasonably safe stadium with regard to the relatively common (but particularly dangerous) hazard of a thrown bat. Because each defendant’s liability rested on a separate duty, there was no inconsistency in the jury verdict absolving the batter of liability but imposing liability on the stadium owner for its failure to provide the patron “protection from flying bats, at least in the area where the greatest danger exists and where such an occurrence is reasonably to be expected.” ( Ratcliff v. San Diego Baseball Club, supra, 27 Cal.App.2d at p. 736.)

Other cases also have analyzed in a similar fashion the duty of the owner of a ballpark or ski resort, in the process defining the risks inherent in the sport not only by virtue of the nature of the sport itself, but also by reference to the steps the sponsoring business entity reasonably should be obligated to take in order to minimize the risks without altering the nature of the sport. (See, e.g., Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn., supra, 3 Cal.2d 725, 728-729 [discussing separately the potential liability of a player and a baseball stadium owner for injury to a spectator]; [**710] Shurman v. Fresno Ice Rink, supra, 91 Cal.App.2d 469, 474-477 [discussing duty owed by owner of ice hockey rink to spectators].) [*318]

Even a cursory review of the numerous sports injury cases reveals the diverse categories of defendants whose alleged misconduct may be at issue in such cases. Thus, for example, suits have been brought against owners of sports facilities such as baseball stadiums and ski resorts (see, e.g., Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn., supra, 3 Cal.2d 725; Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 111 [266 Cal.Rptr. 749]), against manufacturers and reconditioners of sporting equipment (see, e.g., Holdsworth v. Nash Mfg., Inc. (1987) 161 Mich.App. 139 [409 N.W.2d 764]; Gentile v. MacGregor Mfg. Co. (1985) 201 N.J.Super. 612 [493 A.2d 647]), against sports instructors and coaches (see, e.g., Scroggs v. Coast Community College Dist. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1399 [239 Cal.Rptr. 916]; Morris v. Union High School Dist. A (1931) 160 Wash. 121 [294 P. 998]), and against coparticipants (see, e.g., [**716] Tavernier v. Maes (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 532 [51 Cal.Rptr. 575]), alleging that such persons, either by affirmative misconduct or by a failure to act, caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. These cases demonstrate that in the sports setting, as elsewhere, the nature of the applicable duty or standard of care frequently varies with the role of the defendant whose conduct is at issue in a given case.

In the present case, defendant was a participant in the touch football game in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of her injury, and thus the question before us involves the circumstances under which a participant in such a sport may be held liable for an injury sustained by another participant.

(8a) The overwhelming majority of the cases, both within and outside California, that have addressed the issue of coparticipant liability in such a sport, have concluded that [HN8] it is improper to hold a sports participant liable to a coparticipant for ordinary careless conduct committed during the sport–for example, for an injury resulting from a carelessly thrown ball or bat during a baseball game–and that liability properly may be imposed on a participant only when he or she intentionally injures another player or engages in reckless conduct that is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. (See, e.g., Gauvin v. Clark (1989) 404 Mass. 450 [537 N.E.2d 94, 96-97] and cases cited.)

In reaching the conclusion that a coparticipant’s duty of care should be limited in this fashion, the cases have explained that, in the heat of an active sporting event like baseball or football, a participant’s normal energetic conduct often includes accidentally careless behavior. The courts have concluded that vigorous participation in such sporting events likely would be chilled if legal liability were to be imposed on a participant on the basis of his or her ordinary careless conduct. The cases have recognized that, in such a sport, even when a participant’s conduct violates a rule of the game and [*319] may subject the violator to internal sanctions prescribed by the sport itself, imposition of legal liability for such conduct might well alter fundamentally the nature of the sport by deterring participants from vigorously engaging in activity that falls close to, but on the permissible side of, a prescribed rule.

A sampling of the cases that have dealt with the question of the potential tort liability of such sports participants is instructive. In Tavernier v. Maes, supra, 242 Cal.App.2d 532, for example, the Court of Appeal upheld a verdict denying recovery for an injury sustained by the plaintiff second baseman as an unintended consequence of the defendant baserunner’s hard slide into second base during a family picnic softball game. Similarly, in Gaspard v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company (La.Ct.App. 1961) 131 So.2d 831, the plaintiff baseball player was denied recovery when he was struck on the head by a bat which accidentally flew out of the hands of the defendant batter during a school game. (See also Gauvin v. Clark, supra, 404 Mass. 450 [537 N.E.2d 94, 96-97] [plaintiff hockey player injured when hit [**711] [***17] with hockey stick by opposing player; court held that defendant’s liability should be determined by whether he acted “with reckless disregard of safety”]; Marchetti v. Kalish (1990) 53 Ohio.St.3d 95 [559 N.E.2d 699, 703] [child injured while playing “kick the can”; “we join the weight of authority … and require that before a party may proceed with a cause of action involving injury resulting from recreational or sports activity, reckless or intentional conduct must exist”]; Kabella v. Bouschelle (1983) 100 N.M. 461 [672 P.2d 290, 294] [plaintiff injured in informal tackle football game; court held that “a cause of action for personal injuries between participants incurred during athletic competition must be predicated upon recklessness or intentional conduct, ‘not mere negligence’ “]; Ross v. Clouser (Mo. 1982) 637 S.W.2d 11, 13-14 [plaintiff third baseman injured in collision with baserunner; court held that “a cause of action for personal injuries incurred during athletic competition must be predicated on recklessness, not mere negligence”]; Moe v. Steenberg (1966) 275 Minn. 448 [147 N.W.2d 587, 33 A.L.R.3d 311] [plaintiff ice skater denied recovery for injury incurred when another skater, who was skating backwards, accidentally tripped over her after she had fallen on the ice]; Thomas v. Barlow, supra, 5 N.J. Misc. 764 [138 A. 208] [recovery denied when appellate court concluded that plaintiff’s injury, incurred during a basketball game, resulted from an accidental contact with a member of the opposing team].)

By contrast, in Griggas v. Clauson (1955) 6 Ill.App.2d 412 [128 N.E.2d 363], the court upheld liability imposed on the defendant basketball player who, during a game, wantonly assaulted a player on the opposing team, apparently out of frustration with the progress of the game. And, in Bourque v. Duplechin (La.Ct.App. 1976) 331 So.2d 40, the court affirmed a judgment [*320] imposing liability for an injury incurred during a baseball game when the defendant baserunner, in an ostensible attempt to break up a double play, ran into the plaintiff second baseman at full speed, without sliding, after the second baseman had thrown the ball to first base and was standing four to five feet away from second base toward the pitcher’s mound; in upholding the judgment, the court stated that defendant “was under a duty to play softball in the ordinary fashion without unsportsmanlike conduct or wanton injury to his fellow players.” (Id. at p. 42.) (See also Averill v. Luttrell (1957) 44 Tenn.App. 56 [311 S.W.2d 812] [defendant baseball catcher properly held liable when, deliberately and without warning, he hit a batter in the head with his fist]; Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. (10th Cir. 1979) 601 F.2d 516 [trial court erred in absolving defendant football player of liability when, acting out of anger and frustration, he struck a blow with his forearm to the back of the head of an opposing player, who was kneeling on the ground watching the end of a pass interception play]; Overall v. Kadella (1984) 138 Mich.App. 351 [361 N.W.2d 352] [hockey player permitted to recover when defendant player intentionally punched him in the face at the conclusion of the game].)

In our view, the reasoning of the foregoing cases is sound. Accordingly, we conclude that a participant in an active sport breaches a legal duty of care to other participants–i.e., engages in conduct that properly may subject him or her to financial liability–only if the participant intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. 7

7 As suggested by the cases described in the text, the limited duty of care applicable to coparticipants has been applied in situations involving a wide variety of active sports, ranging from baseball to ice hockey and skating. Because the touch football game at issue in this case clearly falls within the rationale of this rule, we have no occasion to decide whether a comparable limited duty of care appropriately should be applied to other less active sports, such as archery or golf. We note that because of the special danger to others posed by the sport of hunting, past cases generally have found the ordinary duty of care to be applicable to hunting accidents. (See, e.g., Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80, 83 [199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91].)

(9a) As applied to the present case, the foregoing legal principle clearly supports [**712] [***18] the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant. The declarations filed in support of and in opposition to the summary judgment motion establish that defendant was, at most, careless or negligent in knocking over plaintiff, stepping on her hand, and injuring her finger. Although plaintiff maintains that defendant’s rough play as described in her declaration and the declaration of Andrea Starr properly can be characterized as “reckless,” the conduct alleged in those declarations is not even closely comparable to the kind of conduct–conduct so reckless as to be totally [*321] outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport–that is a prerequisite to the imposition of legal liability upon a participant in such a sport.

Therefore, we conclude that defendant’s conduct in the course of the touch football game did not breach any legal duty of care owed to plaintiff. Accordingly, this case falls within the primary assumption of risk doctrine, and thus the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Because plaintiff’s action is barred under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, comparative fault principles do not come into play.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal, upholding the summary judgment entered by the trial court, is affirmed.

Lucas, C. J., and Arabian, J., concurred.

DISSENT BY: MOSK, J., PANELLI, J.,

DISSENT

Concurring and Dissenting.

(1e)

(8b)

(9b)

Because I agreed with the substance of the majority opinion in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226, 78 A.L.R.3d 393] (see id. at p. 830), I concur generally with Justice George’s analysis as set forth in part II of the lead opinion. And like the lead opinion, I conclude that the liability of sports participants should be limited to those cases in which their misconduct falls outside the range of the ordinary activity involved the sport. As part I of the lead opinion explains, the kind of overexuberant conduct that is alleged here was not of that nature. I therefore agree that defendant was entitled to summary judgment, for the reasons set forth in part III of the lead opinion.

But I would go farther than does the lead opinion. Though the opinion’s interpretation of Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (supra, 13 Cal.3d 804) is reasonable, I believe the time has come to eliminate implied assumption of risk entirely. The all-or- nothing aspect of assumption of risk is as anachronistic as the all-or- nothing aspect of contributory negligence. As commentators have pointed out, the elements of assumption of risk “are accounted for already in the negligence prima facie case and existing comparative fault defense.” (Wildman & Barker, Time to Abolish Implied Assumption of a Reasonable Risk in California (1991) 25 U.S.F. L.Rev. 647, 679.) Plaintiffs’ behavior can be analyzed under comparative fault principles; no separate defense is needed. (See ) Wildman and Barker explain cogently that numerous California cases invoke both a duty analysis–which I prefer–and an unnecessary implied assumption of risk analysis in deciding a defendant’s liability. (See id. at p. 657 & fn. 58.) In the case before us, too, the invocation of assumption of risk is superfluous: far better to limit the [*322] analysis to concluding that a participant owes no duty to avoid conduct of the type ordinarily involved in the sport.

Were we to eliminate the doctrine of assumption of risk, we would put an end to the doctrinal confusion that now surrounds apportionment of fault in such cases. Assumption of risk now stands for so many different legal concepts that its utility has diminished. A great deal of the confusion surrounding the concept “stems from the fact that the term ‘assumption of risk’ has several different meanings and is often applied without recognizing these different meanings.” ( Rini v. Oaklawn Jockey Club (8th Cir. 1988) 861 F.2d 502, 504-505.) Courts vainly attempt to analyze conduct in such esoteric terms as primary assumption of risk, secondary assumption of risk, reasonable implied assumption of risk, unreasonable implied assumption of risk, etc. Since courts have difficulty in assessing [**713] [***19] facts under the rubric of such abstruse distinctions, it is unlikely that juries can comprehend such distinctions.

Justice Frankfurter explained in a slightly different context, “The phrase ‘assumption of risk’ is an excellent illustration of the extent to which uncritical use of words bedevils the law. A phrase begins life as a literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy repetition; and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas.” ( Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (1943) 318 U.S. 54, 68 [87 L.Ed. 610, 618, 63 S.Ct. 444, 143 A.L.R. 967] (conc. opn. of Frankfurter, J.).) Thus the Rini court, in attempting to determine the viability of assumption of risk in light of the Arkansas comparative fault law, was forced to identify “four types of assumption of risk ….” ( Rini v. Oaklawn Jockey Club, supra, 861 F.2d at p. 505.) These included “implied secondary reasonable assumption of risk” and “implied secondary unreasonable assumption of risk.” (Id. at p. 506.)

I would eliminate the confusion that continued reliance on implied assumption of risk appears to cause, and would simply apply comparative fault principles to determine liability.

Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the majority opinion solely with respect to the result reached. The majority correctly affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the summary judgment entered by the trial court. I dissent, however, from the reasoning of the majority opinion. Instead, I reach a like result by adopting and applying the “consent-based” analysis set forth in the dissenting opinion by Justice Kennard. While I subscribe to the analysis of the dissenting opinion with respect to the doctrine of implied assumption of the risk, I am not in accord [*323] with how it would dispose of this case. I believe that defendant met the burden of demonstrating that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by her participation in the touch football game.

As the dissenting opinion explains: “To establish the defense [of implied assumption of the risk], a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted a risk with knowledge and appreciation of that risk. (Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. [(1954)] 42 Cal.2d 158, 161 [265 P.2d 904].)” (Dis. opn., post, p. 326.) As the dissenting opinion further explains: “A defendant need not prove, however, that the plaintiff ‘had the prescience to foresee the exact accident and injury which in fact occurred.’ ( Sperling v. Hatch (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 54, 61 [88 Cal.Rptr. 704].)” (Ibid.)

There is no question that plaintiff voluntarily chose to play touch football. 1 The undisputed facts in this case also show that plaintiff knew of and accepted the risks associated with the game. Plaintiff was an avid football fan. She had participated in games of touch football in the past. She was aware of the fact that in touch football players try to deflect the ball from receiving players. Plaintiff admitted that the players in the game in question could expect to receive “bumps” and “bruises.” These facts indicate that plaintiff knew and appreciated that physical injury resulting from contact, such as being knocked to the ground, was possible when playing touch football. Defendant was not required to prove more, such as that plaintiff knew or appreciated that a “serious injury” or her particular injury could result from the expected physical contact.

1 Plaintiff points to her request to the defendant during the game to temper his roughness to demonstrate that she did not assume the risk of being injured. She claims that defendant “seemed to acknowledge [her] statement” and “left [her] with the impression that he would play less rough.” Plaintiff’s reported request to defendant does not defeat summary judgment. She continued to play the game. As demonstrated below, she knew that physical contact and resulting injury could occur during a touch football game.

To support the conclusion that summary judgment be reversed under the consent-based approach, the dissenting opinion stresses the broad range of activities that [**714] [***20] can be part of a “touch football game” and that few rules were delineated for the particular game in which plaintiff was injured. I find these facts to be irrelevant to the question at hand. The risk of physical contact and the possibility of resulting injury is inherent in the game of football, no matter who is playing the game or how it is played. While the players who participated in the game in question may have wanted a “mellow” and “noncompetitive” game, such expectations do not alter the fact that anyone who has observed or played any form of football understands that it is a contact sport and that physical injury can result from such physical contact.

[*324] The undisputed facts of this case amply support awarding defendant summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s implied assumption of the risk. I, therefore, concur in affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Baxter, J., concurred.

KENNARD, J.

I disagree with the plurality opinion both in its decision to affirm summary judgment for defendant and in its analytic approach to the defense of assumption of risk.

We granted review in this case and its companion, Ford v. Gouin (post, p. 339 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 834 P.2d 724]), to resolve a lopsided conflict in the Courts of Appeal on whether our adoption 17 years ago of a system of comparative fault in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226, 78 A.L.R.3d 393] (hereafter Li) necessarily abolished the affirmative defense of implied assumption of risk. 1 When confronted with this issue, the overwhelming majority of appellate courts in this state have held that, except to the extent it was subsumed within the former doctrine of contributory negligence this court abolished in Li, implied assumption of risk continues as a complete defense. I would so hold in this case, adhering to the traditional analysis of implied assumption of risk established by a long line of California cases, both before and after Li.

1 Of the several Court of Appeal decisions that considered this issue, only one concluded that our adoption in Li of a system of comparative fault necessarily abolished the traditional defense of assumption of risk.

Not content with deciding the straightforward issue before us–whether the defense of implied assumption of risk survived Li–the plurality opinion uses this case as a forum to advocate a radical transformation of tort law. The plurality proposes to recast the analysis of implied assumption of risk from a subjective evaluation of what a particular plaintiff knew and appreciated about the encountered risk into a determination of the presence or absence of duty legally imposed on the defendant. By thus transforming an affirmative defense into an element of the plaintiff’s negligence action, the plurality would abolish the defense without acknowledging that it is doing so.

The plurality opinion also announces a rule that those who engage in active sports do not owe coparticipants the usual duty of care–as measured by the standard of a reasonable person in like or similar circumstances–to avoid inflicting physical injury. According to the plurality, a sports participant has no duty to avoid conduct inherent in a particular sport. Although I agree that in organized sports contests played under well-established rules participants have no duty to avoid the very conduct that constitutes the sport, [*325] I cannot accept the plurality’s nearly boundless expansion of this general principle to eliminate altogether the “reasonable person” standard as the measure of duty actually owed between sports participants.

The ultimate question posed by this case is whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant. Deriving the facts from the evidence that the parties presented to the trial court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and relying on well-established summary judgment principles, I conclude that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment. In reaching a contrary conclusion, the plurality mischaracterizes the nature of the athletic contest during which plaintiff incurred [**715] [***21] her injury. The evidence reveals that rather than an organized match with well-defined rules, it was an impromptu and informal game among casual acquaintances who entertained divergent views about how it would be played. This inconclusive record simply does not permit a pretrial determination that plaintiff knew and appreciated the risks she faced or that her injury resulted from a risk inherent in the game.

I

To explain my conclusion that implied assumption of risk survives as an affirmative defense under the system of comparative fault this court adopted in Li in 1975, I first summarize the main features of the defense as established by decisions published before Li.

In California, the affirmative defense of assumption of risk has traditionally been defined as the voluntary acceptance of a specific, known and appreciated risk that is or may have been caused or contributed to by the negligence of another. ( Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 162 [265 P.2d 904]; see Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp. (1952) 38 Cal.2d 375, 384-385 [240 P.2d 580].) Assumption of risk may be proved either by the plaintiff’s spoken or written words (express assumption of risk), or by inference from the plaintiff’s conduct (implied assumption of risk). Whether the plaintiff knew and appreciated the specific risk, and voluntarily chose to encounter it, has generally been a jury question. (See 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 1110, p. 523.)

The defense of assumption of risk, whether the risk is assumed expressly or by implication, is based on consent. ( Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service (1963) 60 Cal.2d 266, 271 [32 Cal.Rptr. 193, 383 P.2d 777]; see Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 68, p. 484.) Thus, in both the express and implied forms, the defense is a specific application of the maxim that one “who consents to an act is not wronged by it.” ( Civ. Code, § 3515.) This [*326] consent, we have explained, “will negative liability” ( Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d 158, 161; see also Gyerman v. United States Lines Co. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 488, 498, fn. 10 [102 Cal.Rptr. 795, 498 P.2d 1043] [“In assumption of the risk the negligent party’s liability is negated ….”]), and thus provides a complete defense to an action for negligence.

The elements of implied assumption of risk deserve some explanation. To establish the defense, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted a risk with knowledge and appreciation of that risk. ( Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d 158, 161.) The normal risks inherent in everyday life, such as the chance that one who uses a public highway will be injured by the negligence of another motorist, are not subject to the defense, however, because they are general rather than specific risks. (See Hook v. Point Montara Fire Protection Dist. (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 96, 101 [28 Cal.Rptr. 560].)

The defense of implied assumption of risk depends on the plaintiff’s “actual knowledge of the specific danger involved.” ( Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra, 60 Cal.2d 266, 274.) Thus, one who “knew of the general danger in riding in a bucket of the mine owner’s aerial tramway, did not assume the risk, of which he had no specific knowledge, that the traction cable was improperly spliced.” (Id. at p. 272, italics added, referring to Bee v. Tungstar Corp. (1944) 65 Cal.App.2d 729, 733 [151 P.2d 537]; see also Carr v. Pacific Tel. Co. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 537, 542-543 [103 Cal.Rptr. 120].) A defendant need not prove, however, that the plaintiff “had the clairvoyance to foresee the exact accident and injury which in fact occurred.” ( Sperling v. Hatch (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 54, 61 [88 Cal.Rptr. 704].) “Where the facts are such that the plaintiff must have had knowledge of the hazard, the situation is equivalent to actual knowledge and there may be an assumption of the risk ….” ( Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d at 162.) Indeed, certain well-known risks of harm may be within the general “common knowledge. [***22] ” ( Tavernier v. Maes (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 532, 546 [51 Cal.Rptr. 575].)

As set forth earlier, a person’s assumption of risk must be voluntary. “The plaintiff’s acceptance of a risk is not voluntary if the defendant’s tortious conduct has left him [or her] no reasonable alternative course of conduct in order to [P] (a) avert harm to himself [or herself] or another, or [P] (b) exercise or protect a right or privilege of which the defendant has no right to deprive him [or her].” ( Rest.2d Torts, § 496E, subd. (2); see also Curran v. Green Hills Country Club (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 501, 505-506 [101 Cal.Rptr. 158].) [*327]

This requirement of voluntariness precludes assertion of the defense of assumption of risk by a defendant who has negligently caused injury to another through conduct that violates certain safety statutes or ordinances such as those designed to protect a class of persons unable to provide for their own safety for reasons of inequality of bargaining power or lack of knowledge. (See Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 409, 430-431 [218 P.2d 17] [violation of fire- safety ordinance]; Fonseca v. County of Orange (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 361, 366, 368 [104 Cal.Rptr. 566] [violation of safety order requiring scaffolding and railings at bridge construction site]; see also Mason v. Case (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 170, 177 [33 Cal.Rptr. 710].) Thus, a worker who, to avoid loss of livelihood, continues to work in the face of safety violations does not thereby assume the risk of injury as a result of those violations. (See, e.g., Lab. Code, § 2801; Fonseca v. County of Orange, supra, 28 Cal.App.3d 361.) In such cases, the implied agreement upon which the defense is based is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable.

Our 1975 decision in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, marked a fundamental change in California law governing tort liability based on negligence. Before Li, a person’s own lack of due care for his or her safety, known as contributory negligence, completely barred that person from recovering damages for injuries inflicted by the negligent conduct of another. In Li, we held that a lack of care for one’s own safety would no longer entirely bar recovery, and that juries thereafter should compare the fault or negligence of the plaintiff with that of the defendant to apportion loss between the two. (Id. at pp. 828-829.)

Before it was abolished by Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, the defense of contributory negligence was sometimes confused with the defense of implied assumption of risk. Although this court had acknowledged that the two defenses may “arise from the same set of facts and frequently overlap” ( Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Service, supra, 60 Cal.2d 266, 271), we had emphasized that they were nonetheless “essentially different” (Ibid.) because they were “based on different theories” ( Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d 158, 161). Contributory negligence was premised on a lack of due care or, stated another way, a departure from the reasonable person standard, whereas implied assumption of risk has always depended on a voluntary acceptance of a risk with knowledge and appreciation of that risk. (Id. at pp. 161-162; Gonzalez v. Garcia (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 874, 878 [142 Cal.Rptr. 503].)

The standards for evaluating a plaintiff’s conduct under the two defenses were entirely different. Under contributory negligence, the plaintiff’s conduct was measured against the objective standard of a hypothetical reasonable person. ( Gonzalez v. Garcia, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d 874, 879.) Implied [*328] assumption of risk, in contrast, has always depended upon the plaintiff’s subjective mental state; the relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiff actually knew, appreciated, and voluntarily consented to assume a specific risk of injury. ( Grey v. Fibreboard Paper Products Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 240, 243-245 [53 Cal.Rptr. 545, 418 P.2d 153].)

We said in Li, albeit in dictum, that our adoption of a system of comparative fault would to some extent necessarily impact [**717] [***23] the defense of implied assumption of risk. ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 826.) We explained: “As for assumption of risk, we have recognized in this state that this defense overlaps that of contributory negligence to some extent and in fact is made up of at least two distinct defenses. ‘To simplify greatly, it has been observed … that in one kind of situation, to wit, where a plaintiff unreasonably undertakes to encounter a specific known risk imposed by a defendant’s negligence, plaintiff’s conduct, although he [or she] may encounter that risk in a prudent manner, is in reality a form of contributory negligence …. Other kinds of situations within the doctrine of assumption of risk are those, for example, where plaintiff is held to agree to relieve defendant of an obligation of reasonable conduct toward him [or her]. Such a situation would not involve contributory negligence, but rather a reduction of defendant’s duty of care.’ [Citations.] We think it clear that the adoption of a system of comparative negligence should entail the merger of the defense of assumption of risk into the general scheme of assessment of liability in proportion to fault in those particular cases in which the form of assumption of risk involved is no more than a variant of contributory negligence.” ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 824-825, original italics.)

Although our adoption in Li of a system of comparative fault eliminated contributory negligence as a separate defense, it did not alter the basic attributes of the implied assumption of risk defense or call into question its theoretical foundations, as we affirmed in several cases decided after Li. For example, in Walters v. Sloan (1977) 20 Cal.3d 199 [142 Cal.Rptr. 152, 571 P.2d 609], we said that “one who has knowingly and voluntarily confronted a hazard cannot recover for injuries sustained thereby.” (At p. 204; see also Ewing v. Cloverleaf Bowl (1978) 20 Cal.3d 389, 406 [143 Cal.Rptr. 13, 572 P.2d 1155] [acknowledging the continued viability of the assumption of risk defense after the adoption of comparative fault].) Thereafter, in Lipson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362 [182 Cal.Rptr. 629, 644 P.2d 822], we reiterated that “the defense of assumption of risk arises when the plaintiff voluntarily undertakes to encounter a specific known risk imposed by defendant’s conduct.” (At p. 375, fn. 8.)

The Courts of Appeal directly addressed this issue in several cases, which were decided after Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, and which considered whether, [*329] and to what extent, implied assumption of risk as a complete defense survived our adoption in Li of a system of comparative fault. The first of these cases was Segoviano v. Housing Authority (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 162 [191 Cal.Rptr. 578] (hereafter Segoviano).

In Segoviano, the plaintiff was injured during a flag football game when an opposing player pushed him to the ground as the plaintiff was running along the sidelines trying to score a touchdown. Although the jury found that the opposing player was negligent, and that this negligence was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injury, it also found that the plaintiff’s participation in the game was a negligent act that contributed to the injury. Applying the instructions it had been given on comparative negligence, the jury apportioned fault for the injury between the two players and reduced the plaintiff’s award in accord with that apportionment. (143 Cal.App.3d at p. 166.)

To determine whether the jury had acted properly in making a comparative fault apportionment, the Segoviano court began its analysis by distinguishing those cases in which the plaintiff’s decision to encounter a known risk was “unreasonable” from those in which it was “reasonable.” ( Segoviano, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 162, 164.) In so doing, Segoviano relied on this court’s language in Li, which I have quoted on page 328, ante, that a plaintiff’s conduct in “unreasonably” undertaking to encounter a specific known risk was “a form of contributory negligence” that would be merged “into the general scheme of assessment of liability in proportion to [***24] [**718] fault.” ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, 824-825.)

The Segoviano court defined an “unreasonable” decision to encounter a known risk as one that “falls below the standard of care which a person of ordinary prudence would exercise to avoid injury to himself or herself under the circumstances.” ( Segoviano, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 162, 175, citing Rest.2d Torts, § 463.) The Segoviano court cited a person’s voluntary choice to ride with a drunk driver as an example of an “unreasonable” decision. (Id. at p. 175; see Gonzalez v. Garcia, supra, 75 Cal.App.3d 874, 881; Paula v. Gagnon (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 680, 685 [146 Cal.Rptr. 702].) Because an “unreasonable” decision to risk injury is neglect for one’s own safety, the Segoviano court observed, a jury can appropriately compare the negligent plaintiff’s fault with that of the negligent defendant and apportion responsibility for the injury, applying comparative fault principles to determine the extent of the defendant’s liability. ( Segoviano, supra, at pp. 164, 170.)

By contrast, the plaintiff’s decision to play flag football was, in the Segoviano court’s view, an example of a “reasonable” decision to encounter a known risk of injury. Although the risk of being injured during a flag [*330] football game could be avoided altogether by choosing not to play, this did not render the plaintiff’s decision to play “unreasonable.” ( Segoviano, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 162, 175.) Rather, the court said, a person who participates in a game of flag football is not negligent in doing so, because the choice does not fall below the standard of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise to avoid being injured. The Segoviano court concluded that such cases, in which there is no negligence of the plaintiff to compare with the negligence of the defendant, cannot be resolved by comparative fault apportionment of the plaintiff’s damages. (Id. at pp. 174-175.)

The Segoviano court next considered whether the defense of implied assumption of risk, to the extent it had not merged into comparative fault, continued to provide a complete defense to an action for negligence following our decision in Li (supra, 13 Cal.3d 804). The court asked, in other words, whether a plaintiff’s voluntary and nonnegligent decision to encounter a specific known risk was still a complete bar to recovery, or no bar at all.

In resolving this issue, the court found persuasive a commentator’s suggestion that ” ‘it would be whimsical to treat one who has unreasonably assumed the risk more favorably … than one who reasonably assumed the risk ….’ ” ( Segoviano, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 162, 169, quoting Fleming, The Supreme Court of California 1974-1975, Forward: Comparative Negligence at Last–By Judicial Choice (1976) 64 Cal.L.Rev. 239, 262.) To avoid this “whimsical” result, in which “unreasonable” plaintiffs were allowed partial recovery by way of a comparative fault apportionment while “reasonable” plaintiffs were entirely barred from recovery of damages, the Segoviano court concluded that our decision in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, must mean that the defense of implied assumption of risk had been abolished in all those instances in which it had not merged into the system of comparative fault, and that only express assumption of risk survived as a complete defense to an action for negligence. ( Segoviano, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 162, 169-170.) The Segoviano court thus held that the defense of implied assumption of risk “plays no part in the comparative negligence system of California.” (Id. at p. 164.) Various Court of Appeal decisions soon challenged this holding of Segoviano.

One decision characterized Segoviano‘s analysis as “suspect.” ( Rudnick v. Golden West Broadcasters (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 793, 800, fn. 4 [202 Cal.Rptr. 900].) Another case disregarded it entirely in reaching a contrary result ( Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, 714 [211 Cal.Rptr. [***25] 668] [**719] [“Where assumption of the risk is not merely a form of contributory negligence,” it remains “a complete defense.”]; accord, Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 176, 183 [229 Cal.Rptr. 612]; Willenberg v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 185, 186-187 [229 Cal.Rptr. [*331] 625]). And in Ordway v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 104 [243 Cal.Rptr. 536] (hereafter Ordway), the court rejected Segoviano outright, holding instead that “reasonable” implied assumption of risk continued as a complete defense under the newly adopted system of comparative fault.

The Court of Appeal that decided Ordway, supra, interpreted Li‘s reference to a form of assumption of risk under which ” ‘plaintiff is held to agree to relieve defendant of an obligation of reasonable conduct toward him [or her]’ ” ( Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 824) as describing a doctrine that the Ordway court termed “reasonable” implied assumption of risk. This doctrine, the Ordway court concluded, was unaffected by Li‘s adoption of a system of comparative negligence and remained a complete defense after Li. ( Ordway, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 103-104.) According to Ordway, a plaintiff who voluntarily and reasonably assumes a risk, “whether for recreational enjoyment, economic reward, or some similar purpose,” is deemed thereby to have agreed to reduce the defendant’s duty of care and “cannot prevail.” (Id. at p. 104.)

After concluding that the defense of implied assumption of risk remained viable after this court’s decision in Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, the Ordway court discussed the preclusive impact of the defense on the facts of the case before it. Ordway involved a negligence action brought by a professional jockey who had been injured in a horse race when another jockey, violating a rule of the California Horse Racing Board, crossed into the plaintiff’s lane. The court first noted that professional jockeys must be aware that injury-causing accidents are both possible and common in horse racing, as in other sports activities. ( Ordway, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 111.) The court observed that although the degree of risk to be anticipated would vary with the particular sport involved, a plaintiff may not recover from a coparticipant for a sports injury if the coparticipant’s injury-causing actions fell within the ordinary expectations of those engaged in the sport. (Id. at pp. 111-112.) On this basis, the Ordway court held that the plaintiff jockey’s action was barred.

Other decisions by the Courts of Appeal that have addressed implied assumption of risk have followed Ordway, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98. ( Nunez v. R’Bibo (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 559, 562- 563 [260 Cal.Rptr. 1]; Von Beltz v. Stuntman, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1467, 1477-1478 [255 Cal.Rptr. 755]; King v. Magnolia Homeowners Assn. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1312, 1316 [253 Cal.Rptr. 140].) In my view, Ordway was correct in its conclusions that the defense of implied assumption of risk survived this court’s adoption in Li (supra, 13 Cal.3d 804) of a system of comparative fault, and that the defense remains a complete bar to recovery in negligence cases in which the plaintiff has knowingly and voluntarily consented to encounter a specific risk. [*332]

Ordway was also correct in its observation that the terms “unreasonable” and “reasonable” are confusing when used to distinguish the form of implied assumption of risk that has merged into the system of comparative fault from the form that has not so merged. As Ordway suggested, the reasonable/unreasonable labels would be more easily understood by substituting the terms “knowing and intelligent,” for “reasonable,” and “negligent or careless” for “unreasonable.” ( Ordway, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 105.)

The defense of implied assumption of risk is never based on the “reasonableness” of the plaintiff’s conduct, as such, but rather on a recognition that a person generally should be required to accept responsibility for the normal consequences of a freely chosen course of conduct. (See Simons, [**720] [***26] Assumption of Risk and Consent in the Law of Torts: A Theory of Full Preference (1987) 67 B.U. L.Rev. 213, 258 [“consent is neither reasonable nor unreasonable[;] [i]t simply expresses what plaintiff wants or prefers”].) In implied assumption of risk situations, the plaintiff’s conduct often defies legal characterization as either reasonable or unreasonable. Even when this is not so, and a court or jury could appropriately determine whether the plaintiff’s conduct was reasonable, the distinction to be drawn is not so much between reasonable and unreasonable conduct. Rather, the essential distinction is between conduct that is deliberate and conduct that is merely careless. Referring to “reasonable” implied assumption of risk lends unwarranted credence to the charge that the law is “whimsical” in treating unreasonable behavior more favorably than behavior that is reasonable. There is nothing arbitrary or whimsical in requiring plaintiffs to accept responsibility for the consequences of their considered and deliberate choices, while at the same time apportioning liability between a plaintiff and a defendant who have both exhibited carelessness.

In those cases that have merged into comparative fault, partial recovery is permitted, not because the plaintiff has acted unreasonably, but because the unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s apparent choice provides compelling evidence that the plaintiff was merely careless and could not have truly appreciated and voluntarily consented to the risk, or because enforcement of the implied agreement on which the defense is based would be contrary to sound public policy. In these cases, implied assumption of risk is simply not available as a defense, although comparative negligence may be.

In those cases in which a plaintiff’s decision to encounter a specific known risk was not the result of carelessness (that is, when the plaintiff’s conduct is not merely a form of contributory negligence), nothing in this court’s adoption in Li (supra, 13 Cal.3d 804) of a system of comparative fault suggests that implied assumption of risk must or should be eliminated [*333] as a complete defense to an action for negligence. I would hold, therefore, that the defense continues to exist in such situations unaffected by this court’s adoption in Li of a comparative fault system.

II

The plurality opinion approaches the viability of implied assumption of risk after Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, in a fashion altogether different from the traditional consent analysis I have described. It begins by conceding that Li effected only a partial merger of the assumption of risk defense into the system of comparative fault. It then concludes, with no foundational support in California law, that the actual effect of this partial merger was to bifurcate implied assumption of risk into two subcategories that the plurality calls “primary” and “secondary” assumption of risk.

The plurality’s “secondary assumption of risk” category includes those situations in which assumption of risk is merely a variant of contributory negligence. In those situations, under the plurality approach, implied assumption of risk merges into comparative fault; a trial court presented with a “secondary” case would therefore instruct the jury only on the principles of damage apportionment based on comparative fault, but not on implied assumption of risk as a separate and complete defense. Thus, implied assumption of risk does not survive as a separate and complete defense in these “secondary” cases.

Under the plurality’s approach, implied assumption of risk fares no better in the “primary assumption of risk” cases. That category includes only those cases in which the defendant owes no duty to the plaintiff. Without duty, of course, there is no basis for a negligence action and thus no need for an affirmative defense to negligence. Consequently, implied assumption of risk ceases to operate as an affirmative defense in these “primary” cases.

The plurality purports to interpret Li, supra, 13 Cal.3d 804, but instead works a sleight-of-hand switch on the assumption of risk defense. [**721] [***27] In those situations in which implied assumption of risk does not merge into comparative fault, the plurality recasts what has always been a question of the plaintiff’s implied consent into a question of the defendant’s duty. This fundamental alteration of well-established tort principles was not preordained by Li nor was it a logical evolution of California law either before or after this court’s decision in Li. Seizing on Li‘s statement that a plaintiff who assumes the risk thereby reduces a defendant’s duty of care, the plurality concludes that defendants had no duty of care in the first place. The plurality presents its analysis as merely an integration of the defense of implied [*334] assumption of risk into the system of comparative fault, but this “integration” is in truth a complete abolition of a defense that California courts have adhered to for more than 50 years. I see no need or justification for this drastic revision of California law.

III

On a motion for summary judgment, a defendant can establish implied assumption of risk as a complete defense to negligence by submitting uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff sustained the injury while engaged in voluntarily chosen activity under circumstances showing that the plaintiff knew or must have known that the specific risks of the chosen activity included the injury suffered. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a), (c), (f); Garcia v. Rockwell Internat. Corp. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1556, 1560 [142 Cal.Rptr. 503]; Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Turlock (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 988, 994 [216 Cal.Rptr. 796].) In this case, the trial court entered summary judgment for defendant, ruling that the evidence supporting the motion established assumption of risk under the traditional consent analysis.

The undisputed, material facts are as follows: Plaintiff, defendant, and six or eight other guests gathered at the home of a mutual friend to watch a television broadcast of the 1987 Super Bowl football game. During the game’s half time, the group went to an adjacent dirt lot for an informal game of touch football. The participants divided into two teams, each including men as well as women. They used a child’s soft, “peewee-size” football for the game. The players expected the game to be “mellow” and “noncompetitive,” without any “forceful pushing, hard hitting or hard shoving.”

Plaintiff and defendant were on opposing teams. Plaintiff was an avid fan of televised professional football, but she had played touch football only rarely and never with this particular group. When defendant ran into her early in the game, plaintiff objected, stating that he was playing too roughly and if he continued, she would not play. Plaintiff stated in her declaration that defendant “seemed to acknowledge [her] statement” and “left [her] with the impression that he would play less rough.” On the very next play, defendant knocked plaintiff down and inflicted the injury for which she seeks recovery.

We have held that summary judgment “is a drastic measure” that should “be used with caution.” ( Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107 [252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46].) On appeal from a summary judgment, well-settled rules dictate that the moving party’s evidence supporting the motion be strictly construed and that doubts about granting the motion be [*335] resolved in favor of the party that opposed the motion. (Ibid.) Applying those rules here, I conclude that defendant has not established implied assumption of risk as a complete defense to plaintiff’s action for negligence.

Notably missing from the undisputed facts is any evidence that plaintiff either knew or must have known that by participating in this particular game she would be engaging in a sport that would subject players to being knocked to the ground. She had played touch football only rarely, never with these players, and just before her injury had expressly told defendant that her participation in the touch football game was conditioned on him not being so rough. Moreover, the game was not even a regular game of touch football. When deposed, defendant conceded that this [**722] [***28] touch football game was highly unusual because the teams consisted of both men and women and the players used a child’s peewee ball. He agreed that the game was not “regulation football,” but was more of a “mock” football game.

“Touch football” is less the name of a game than it is a generic description that encompasses a broad spectrum of activity. At one end of the spectrum is the “traditional” aggressive sandlot game, in which the risk of being knocked down and injured should be immediately apparent to even the most casual observer. At the other end is the game that a parent gently plays with young children, really little more than a game of catch. Here, defendant may prevail on his summary judgment motion only if the undisputed facts show that plaintiff knew this to be the type of game that involved a risk of being knocked to the ground. As explained above, such knowledge by the plaintiff was not established. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant on the ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury.

IV

To uphold the grant of summary judgment for defendant, the plurality relies on a form of analysis virtually without precedent in this state. As an offshoot of its advocacy of the primary/secondary approach to implied assumption of risk, the plurality endorses a categorical rule under which coparticipants in active sports have no duty to avoid conduct “inherent” in the sport, and thus no liability for injuries resulting from such conduct. Applying the rule to the facts shown here, the plurality concludes that plaintiff’s injury resulted from a risk “inherent” in the sport she played and that defendant owed her no duty to avoid the conduct that caused this injury.

Generally, a person is under a legal duty to use ordinary care, measured by the conduct of a hypothetical reasonable person in like or similar circumstances, to avoid injury to others. ( Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a).) Judicially [*336] fashioned exceptions to this general duty rule must be clearly supported by public policy. ( Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1079 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197].) The plurality’s no-duty-for-sports rule is such a judicially fashioned exception to the general duty rule. Under the plurality’s rule, a sports participant’s conduct is not evaluated by the “reasonable person” standard. Rather, the player is exempted from negligence liability for all injuries resulting from conduct that is “inherent” in the sport.

The plurality’s no-duty-for-sports rule derives from cases in a few jurisdictions concluding that a participant’s liability for injuries to a coparticipant during competitive sports must be based on reckless or intentional conduct. (See Gauvin v. Clark (1989) 404 Mass. 450 [537 N.E.2d 94]; Kabella v. Bouschelle (1983) 100 N.M. 461 [672 P.2d 290]; Ross v. Clouser (Mo. 1982) 637 S.W.2d 11; Nabozny v. Barnhill (1975) 31 Ill.App.3d 212 [334 N.E.2d 258, 77 A.L.R.3d 1294].) Although these courts have chosen to explain the rule in terms of the absence of duty, the consent analysis of implied assumption of risk would provide an equally satisfactory explanation. (See Ordway, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 110-112.) The reason no duty exists in these competitive sports situations is that, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court has explained in Gauvin, each participant has a right to infer that the others have agreed to undergo a type of physical contact that would otherwise constitute assault and battery. 2 ( Gauvin v. Clark, supra, 537 N.E.2d at p. 96.) Without some reference to mutual consent or implied agreement among coparticipants, the no-duty-for-sports rule would be difficult to explain and justify. Thus, the rationale of the rule, even in no-duty garb, is harmonious with the traditional logic of implied assumption of risk.

2 In adopting a rule of no duty for organized competitive sports, the Massachusetts court candidly acknowledged that legislative abolition of the assumption of risk defense had forced it to shift the focus of analysis from the plaintiff’s knowing confrontation of risk to the scope of the defendant’s duty of care. ( Gauvin v. Clark, supra, 537 N.E.2d at p. 97, fn. 5.)

[**723] [***29] Although there is nothing inherently wrong with the plurality’s no-duty rule as applied to organized, competitive, contact sports with well- established modes of play, it should not be extended to other, more casual sports activities, such as the informal “mock” football game shown by the evidence in this case. Outside the context of organized and well-defined sports, the policy basis for the duty limitation–that the law should permit and encourage vigorous athletic competition ( Gauvin v. Clark, supra, 537 N.E.2d at p. 96)–is considerably weakened or entirely absent. Thus, the no-duty-for-sports rule logically applies only to organized sports contests played under well-settled, official rules ( Gauvin v. Clark, supra, 537 N.E.2d 94 [college varsity hockey game]; Ross v. Clouser, supra, 637 S.W.2d 11 [church league softball game]; Nabozny v. Barnhill, supra, 334 N.E.2d 258 [organized, [*337] amateur soccer game]), or on unequivocal evidence that the sport as played involved the kind of physical contact that generally could be expected to result in injury ( Kabella v. Bouschelle, supra, 670 P.2d 290).

The plurality may believe that its no-duty rule for sports participants will facilitate early resolution of personal injury actions by demurrer or motions for summary judgment and thus provide relief to overburdened trial courts by eliminating the need for jury trials in many of these cases. But the plurality fails to explain just how trial courts will be able to discern, at an early stage in the proceedings, which risks are inherent in a given sport.

Under the plurality’s no-duty-for-sports rule, a sports participant is exempted from negligence liability for all injuries resulting from conduct that is within “the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.” (Plur. opn., ante, at p. 320.) Under this approach, as the plurality acknowledges, “the nature of a defendant’s duty in the sports context depends heavily on the nature of the sport itself.” (Id., ante, at p. 317.)

The issue framed by the plurality’s no-duty approach can be decided on demurrer only if the plaintiff has alleged in the complaint that the injury resulted from a risk inherent in an injury-causing sport, something careful pleaders are unlikely to do. And because summary judgment depends on uncontroverted material facts, early adjudication of the duty issue by summary judgment is equally doubtful. In cases involving all but the most well-known professional sports, plaintiffs will usually be able to counter defense evidence seeking to establish what risks are inherent in the sport. Cases that cannot be resolved by demurrer or summary judgment will, under the plurality’s approach, proceed to trial solely under comparative fault, leaving the jury no opportunity to decide whether the plaintiff made a knowing and voluntary decision to assume the risk.

The plurality’s resolution of this case amply illustrates the difficulty of attempting to decide the question of duty by motion for summary judgment. To sustain summary judgment under the plurality’s approach, the defendant must have conclusively negated the element of duty necessary to the plaintiff’s negligence case. ( Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra, 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.) Therefore, under the plurality approach, defendant here is entitled to summary judgment only if he negated the element of duty by presenting undisputed evidence showing that his injury-causing conduct was within the range of activity ordinarily involved in the sport he was then playing.

But what is “the range of the ordinary activity” involved in touch football? As I have previously explained, the generic term “touch football” encompasses such a broad range of activity that it is difficult to conceive of an [*338] “ordinary” game. Even if such a game could be identified, defendant offered no evidence in support of his motion for summary judgment to show that players are knocked to the ground in the “ordinary” game. In the absence of uncontroverted evidence on this material fact, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment.

[**724] [***30] As mentioned earlier, defendant admitted at his deposition that this was not a “regulation football” game, and that it was more of a “mock” game because it was played by both men and women using a child’s peewee ball. Given the spontaneous and irregular form of the game, it is not surprising that the participants demonstrated uncertainty about the bounds of appropriate conduct. One participant, asked at deposition whether defendant had done anything “out of the normal,” touched the nub of the problem by replying with this query: “Who’s [sic; whose] normal? My normal?”

Defendant did not present uncontroverted evidence that his own rough level of play was “inherent” in or normal to the particular game being played. In the view of one of the players, defendant was playing “considerably rougher than was necessary.” Other players described defendant as a fast runner and thought he might have been playing too hard. Absent uncontroverted evidence that defendant’s aggressive style of play was appropriate, there is no basis for the plurality’s conclusion that his injury-causing conduct in knocking plaintiff to the ground was within the range of ordinary and acceptable behavior for the ill-defined sports activity in which plaintiff was injured.

Defendant did not meet his burden to establish by undisputed evidence a legal entitlement to summary judgment. The record fails to support summary judgment under either the traditional consent approach to the defense of assumption of risk or the plurality’s no-duty approach. Thus, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that judgment. I would reverse.