Question answered in California, what happens if an injured skier is injured again while be tobogganed down the ski slope?

If you assume the risk of skiing in California, you also assume the risk of being injured being tobogganed down the hill by a ski patroller.

Martine v. Heavenly Valley, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6043

State: California, Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District

Plaintiff: Teresa Martine

Defendant: Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Claims: ski patrol negligently failed to maintain control of the sled, causing it to slide down the mountain and into a tree, A ski patroller operating a sled is a common courier

Defendant Defenses: Assumption of the Risk

Holding: For the defendant

Year: 2018

Summary

This is a first of its kind case that I have found alleging negligence against the ski area for an injury received while being transported down a ski run in a toboggan by a ski patroller.

The case also looked at whether a ski area operating a ski patrol using toboggans was a common carrier, owing “passengers” the highest degree of care.

Neither argument by the plaintiff won because she assumed the risks of skiing and after claiming an injury, the risk of being transported down the mountain by the ski patroller in a toboggan.

Facts

As the plaintiff was waiting for a ski patroller to come assist a friend she was skiing with she felt her knee slip. She then requested a toboggan ride down the mountain from the ski patrol.

While descending the mountain, the patroller claims he was hit by a snowboarder and knocked down causing the toboggan to crash. The plaintiff alleged the ski patroller was skiing too fast and lost control sending the toboggan tumbling down the mountain injuring her.

“Heavenly contends that while [Horn] was skiing down the groomed and limited pitch terrain on Lower Mombo, three snowboarders emerged from the trees, off-piste to his right. [Fn. omitted.] While the snowboarders turned to their right, Heavenly claims the last snowboarder clipped [Horn’s] right ski, causing him to fall. Based upon [Horn’s] view, as the snowboarders turned right, they did so on their toe side edge, which put their backs to him. [Horn] tried to avoid a collision with the last snowboarder, but he was unsuccessful, and when he fell the toboggan rolled over. Heavenly alleges that the rollover caused some of plaintiff’s equipment in the toboggin to hit her head.

“Plaintiff, however, contends there was no contact with any of the snowboarders, who she claims were downhill of [Horn]. Instead, plaintiff argues [Horn] lost control of the sled, and he was going too fast and fell. Plaintiff further asserts that [Horn’s] reports indicate the incident did not involve any collision, and the toboggan tumbled instead of simply rolling over. Plaintiff also contends her initial head injuries were caused by the sled tumbling out of control and hitting a tree.”

The plaintiff filed suit, one year 11 months after her injury, claiming a simple negligence claim. The ski area answered and pled numerous affirmative defenses, including the defense of assumption of the risk.

An affirmative defense is one that must be plead by the defendant, or it is lost. Affirmative defenses are listed by the courts, and their requirements are specific and known so that the parties understand exactly what is meant by the defense.

The ski area eventually filed a motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk. The trial court agreed and granted the defendants motion. The plaintiff appealed, and this decision is the California Court of Appeals upholding the trial court’s decision.

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

The analysis started with a review of the findings of the trial court.

The trial court found, in part, that Martine voluntarily engaged in the activity of skiing and injured her knee while doing so. The court further found that Martine voluntarily summoned the ski patrol for help and voluntarily accepted the ski patrol’s aid knowing that she and Horn risked interference from, or collisions with, other skiers or snowboarders as they descended the mountain.

The court then looked at how primary of assumption of the risk as defined under California law would apply to this case.

“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. Thus, for example, a property owner ordinarily is required to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on his or her property. In the sports setting, however, conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an integral part of the sport itself. 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. In this respect, the nature of a sport is highly relevant in defining the duty of care owed by the particular defendant.”

If the injured party voluntarily agrees to participate, in the sport of skiing or in being transported down the mountain by the ski patrol, the plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries.

You volunteer to ski; you volunteer to get in the toboggan and you volunteer to be skied down the hill by the patroller. You, therefore, cannot sue because of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. You knowingly assumed the risk leading to your injuries.

The plaintiff argued on appeal that a ski patroller running a toboggan is a common carrier. A common carrier is generally known as a business that transport people for a fee. Trains, subways, and airlines are examples of common carriers. A common carrier owes the highest degree of care to those who the common carrier is transporting.

Specifically, a common carrier must “do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstances” to avoid injuring those that it carries.

California defines common carries by statute, Civil Code section 2168, which defines common carrier as “[e]veryone who offers to the public to carry persons, property, or messages, excepting only telegraphic messages is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry.”

In California and Colorado, a ski area is a common carrier when someone is riding the ski lift. They are transporting people for hire and in the business of doing so to anyone who buys a ticket.

There is a three-part test to determine whether someone transporting someone for hire is a common carrier.

In deciding whether Heavenly is a common carrier, a court may properly consider whether (1) the defendant maintains a regular place of business for the purpose of transportation; (2) the defendant advertises its services to the general public; and (3) the defendant charges standard fees for its services.

The court did not have to determine if Heavenly was a common carrier because the plaintiff put forth no facts, no evidence that the ski area and a ski patroller with a toboggan were a common carrier. With no evidence, the plaintiff cannot make an argument supporting her claims, and the court could not make a ruling.

The court, however, still overruled the argument stating:

Further, descent from a mountain via rescue sled operated by ski patrol is distinguishable from the ski lifts discussed in Squaw Valley because unlike the lifts that indiscriminately “carry skiers at a fixed rate from the bottom to the top” of the mountain, rescue patrollers, at a patroller’s discretionary election, transport injured skiers without any apparent compensation to the bottom of the mountain.

The California Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.

So Now What?

You always have the option, unless you are unconscious, to refuse the toboggan ride down the mountain and get down on your own. In this case, it almost sounds like the plaintiff still could have skied down but did not.

It does not matter though because once you assume the risk of skiing you assume all the risks associated with the activity, including the risks of additional injury while being rescued.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2018 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,


Martine v. Heavenly Valley, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6043

Martine v. Heavenly Valley

Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District

September 4, 2018, Opinion Filed

C076998

2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6043 *

TERESA MARTINE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HEAVENLY VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant and Respondent.

Opinion

 [*1]  Plaintiff Teresa Martine (Martine) hurt her knee while skiing at Heavenly Valley Ski Resort and was being helped down the mountain by a ski patrolman when the rescue sled in which she was riding went out of control and hit a tree. Martine sued resort owner Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership (Heavenly) for negligence and for damages arising from her injuries.

Heavenly moved for summary judgment arguing that there was no evidence that its employee, a ski patrolman named Gustav Horn (Horn) had been negligent in taking Martine down the mountain thus causing the sled to hit the tree and that, in any event, Martine‘s action is barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

The trial court granted Heavenly’s motion and entered judgment accordingly. Martine appeals.

As we understand her arguments on appeal, Martine asserts: (1) there is evidence on the motion to support Martine‘s claim that the ski patroller Horn was negligent; (2) her action is not barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk; (3) the trial court erred in not allowing her to amend her complaint to allege negligence and damages arising from a second injury she incurred the same day while being taken off the [*2]  mountain; and (4) the trial court erred in not granting her motion for a new trial.

We affirm the judgment.

The Proceedings

On March 2, 2011, Martine filed a Judicial Council of California form complaint alleging general negligence against Heavenly for injuries she suffered on March 23, 2009. Specifically, Martine alleged: “Heavenly is liable for the negligent transportation of an injured party. Ms. Martine injured her knee while skiing and called for ski patrol to transport her to the bottom of the mountain. She was loaded into a sled by ski patrol, who may have loaded her improperly. During her transport to the bottom of the mountain, ski patrol negligently failed to maintain control of the sled, causing it to slide down the mountain and into a tree. As a result of the accident, Ms. Martine suffered injuries to her head and leg.”

Heavenly answered the complaint, asserting various affirmative defenses, including that Martine had assumed the risk for all injuries sustained and that her injuries “resulted from inherent risks of the activity in which [Martine] engaged and as to which [Heavenly] owed no duty.”

On November 21, 2012, Heavenly brought its motion for summary judgment (Motion) [*3]  arguing alternatively that Martine‘s complaint (1) was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, or (2) there was no evidence that Heavenly breached a duty of care and/or caused Martine‘s injuries.


Martine opposed the Motion, arguing: (1) the doctrine of primary assumption of risk “does not apply to the transportation of injured skiers by the ski resort’s ski patroller” and (2) the doctrine of primary assumption of risk “does not apply to the transportation of injured skiers by the ski resort’s ski patroller engaged in a common carrier activity charged with the duty of utmost care.” As to her common carrier contention, Martine also argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, which would show negligence on the part of Heavenly’s employee.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for Heavenly ruling that Martine‘s action was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk and that Heavenly was not acting in the capacity of a common carrier at the time of the accident.

Martine thereafter moved for a new trial arguing, in part, that there was newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the motion.

The Facts

In its order [*4]  granting summary judgment, the trial court set forth the following disputed and undisputed facts relevant to the motion. Neither party has challenged the trial court’s statement of facts and, having reviewed the record on our own, we will adopt it as the statement of facts relevant to the motion for summary judgment.

“On March 23, 2009, plaintiff was skiing down Powder Bowl at Heavenly Mountain Resort. While skiing with friends, one of plaintiff’s companions came out of her skis, and plaintiff called for the assistance of ski patrol. Plaintiff claims that while standing on the hill her kneecap ‘moved out and back in.’

“Volunteer ski patroller Gustav ‘Gus’ Horn was dispatched to the scene of plaintiff’ s call for assistance. [Horn had] been a ski patroller, both paid and as a volunteer, for the [prior] twenty-eight years. He [had] been at Heavenly for ten years, and he [had] patrolled there over 100 days. [Horn was] a certified professional ski patroller and examiner in first aid, toboggan handling, and skiing, and [was] recertified every two years. [Horn was] trained in all aspects of patrolling, including patient care, toboggan transport, and first aid, and [was] tested on these skills [*5]  each year by Heavenly. He receive[d] annual and ongoing on-hill training in all aspects of ski patrol including, but not limited to, toboggan training, toboggan training on steep slopes, first aid, and other areas.

“When [Horn] arrived at the scene, he conducted an assessment of plaintiff’s reported injuries and called for a toboggan to be transported to him. When the toboggan arrived, [Horn] unpacked it and stabilized it. He applied a quick splint to plaintiff’s left leg in accordance with his training and knowledge, [which included] immobilizing the area above and below the injury site, plaintiff’s knee. [Horn] had plaintiff lay down in the toboggan inside a blanket roll. After plaintiff was in the toboggan, [Horn] placed a plastic cover or tarp over her, he placed her equipment on her non-injury side (her right side), and strapped her in using the straps provided on the toboggan.

“Heavenly contends that while [Horn] was skiing down the groomed and limited pitch terrain on Lower Mombo, three snowboarders emerged from the trees, off-piste to his right. [Fn. omitted.] While the snowboarders turned to their right, Heavenly claims the last snowboarder clipped [Horn’s] right ski, causing [*6]  him to fall. Based upon [Horn’s] view, as the snowboarders turned right, they did so on their toe side edge, which put their backs to him. [Horn] tried to avoid a collision with the last snowboarder, but he was unsuccessful, and when he fell the toboggan rolled over. Heavenly alleges that the rollover caused some of plaintiff’s equipment in the toboggin to hit her head.

“Plaintiff, however, contends there was no contact with any of the snowboarders, who she claims were downhill of [Horn]. Instead, plaintiff argues [Horn] lost control of the sled, and he was going too fast and fell. Plaintiff further asserts that [Horn’s] reports indicate the incident did not involve any collision, and the toboggan tumbled instead of simply rolling over. Plaintiff also contends her initial head injuries were caused by the sled tumbling out of control and hitting a tree.”

Heavenly asserts “[t]he rollover caused some of [Martine‘s] equipment in the toboggan to hit her head” while Martine contends her “initial head injuries were caused by the sled tumbling out of control and hitting a tree.”

Discussion

I

Scope of Review

As the California Supreme Court explained in Aguilar v. Atlantic Ridgefield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 (Aguilar), “Under summary judgment law, [*7]  any party to an action, whether plaintiff or defendant, ‘may move’ the court ‘for summary judgment’ in his favor on a cause of action (i.e., claim) or defense (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)) . . . . The court must ‘grant[]’ the ‘motion’ ‘if all the papers submitted show’ that ‘there is no triable issue as to any material fact’ (id., § 437c, subd. (c))–that is, there is no issue requiring a trial as to any fact that is necessary under the pleadings and, ultimately, the law [citations]–and that the ‘moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)). The moving party must ‘support[]’ the ‘motion’ with evidence including ‘affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice’ must or may ‘be taken.’ (Id., § 437c, subd. (b).) Likewise, any adverse party may oppose the motion, and, ‘where appropriate,’ must present evidence including ‘affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice’ must or may ‘be taken.’ (Ibid.) An adverse party who chooses to oppose the motion must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to do so. (Id., § 437c, subd. (h).)” (Aguilar, at p. 843.)

“In ruling on the motion, the court must ‘consider all of the evidence’ [*8]  and ‘all’ of the ‘inferences’ reasonably drawn therefrom (id., § 437c, subd. (c)), and must view such evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.) “[I]f the court concludes that the plaintiff’s evidence or inferences raise a triable issue of material fact, it must conclude its consideration and deny the defendant[‘s] motion.” (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at p. 856.)

” ‘The purpose of a summary judgment proceeding is to permit a party to show that material factual claims arising from the pleadings need not be tried because they are not in dispute.’ (Andalon v. Superior Court, [(1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 600, 604-605].) ‘The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues: the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.’ [Citations.] The complaint measures the materiality of the facts tendered in a defendant’s challenge to the plaintiff’s cause of action. [Citation.]” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381.)

“A defendant . . . has met his . . . burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, [*9]  or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff . . . shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

We review the record and the determination of the trial court de novo. (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476; Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003; see also, Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460.)

A motion for a new trial may be sought following an order on summary judgment, and the decision thereon is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 858-859.)

II

The Pleadings

Given the law set forth above and to give structure to our opinion, we should first turn to the pleadings in this matter.

As we related earlier, Martine brought a complaint alleging against Heavenly a single cause of action for negligence in that she “injured her knee while skiing and called for ski patrol to transport her to the bottom of the mountain. She was loaded into a sled [*10]  by ski patrol, who may have loaded her improperly. During her transport to the bottom of the mountain, ski patrol negligently failed to maintain control of the sled, causing it to slide down the mountain and into a tree.”

As is apparent, Martine‘s sole cause of action sounds in negligence relying essentially on an allegation that Horn negligently failed to maintain control of the emergency sled in which she was riding, leading to her injuries. At its essence, Heavenly challenges the allegation of negligence arguing that there is no evidence of negligence on Horn’s part and, even if he was simply negligent, that negligence is legally offset by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Martine‘s single pleading “delimits” the issues on the motion for summary judgment.

We recognize that Martine also contends that her pleading should be read broadly enough to encompass a claimed injury arising from being dropped when later being loaded on the ski tram. We reject that contention, post, as did the trial court.

Finally, we find that we need not address Martine‘s claim that she presented sufficient evidence on the motion to require a trial as to Heavenly’s negligence in causing her injuries [*11]  (or that Heavenly did not present enough evidence to find there was no triable issue of material fact on the question of negligence) because in this matter we find a defense based on the doctrine of the primary assumption of the risk dispositive.

III

Primary Assumption of the Risk

The trial court found, in part, that Martine voluntarily engaged in the activity of skiing and injured her knee while doing so. The court further found that Martine voluntarily summoned the ski patrol for help and voluntarily accepted the ski patrol’s aid knowing that she and Horn risked interference from, or collisions with, other skiers or snowboarders as they descended the mountain.

As explained in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 (Knight):

“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.) Thus, for example, a property owner ordinarily is required to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on his or her property. [Citations.] In the sports setting, however, conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an integral part of the sport itself. Thus, although moguls on a ski run pose a risk of [*12]  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.” (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 315.)

Determining “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.” (Knight, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 313.)

A.
Martine‘s Injury was Due to a Risk Inherent in the Sport of Skiing

“The risks inherent in snow skiing have been well catalogued and recognized by the courts” including “injuries from variations in terrain, surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions, moguls, bare spots, rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris” and “collisions with other skiers, ski lift towers, and other properly marked or plainly visible objects and equipment.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1202, italics added.)


Martine argues that she and Horn were not participating in the active sport [*13]  of skiing at the time of the accident. This argument is unpersuasive.

Martine was skiing on a ski run when she apparently hurt her knee and sought and secured assistance from the ski patrol. The possibility that Martine might injure herself while skiing and need assistance descending the mountain is one of the foreseeable risks of the sport of skiing. That one might be injured during that descent on a rescue toboggan are risks inherent in the sport of skiing.

Putting aside Martine‘s unsupported speculation as to the cause of the accident, the facts adequately supported by the evidence on the motion are that the person assisting Martine down the mountain fell after an encounter with snowboarders who emerged from the woods. Falling during skiing is a risk inherent to the sport. (Kane v. National Ski Patrol System, Inc. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 204, 214 [“Falling and thereby being injured or even killed are inherent dangers of skiing”].) And as noted earlier, collisions or near-collisions with other skiers or snowboarders on the mountain are also inherent in the sport of skiing whether one is skiing or being taken off the mountain after being injured while skiing.

We conclude the trial court properly determined that Martine‘s claim for negligence is barred by [*14]  the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

B. The Common Carrier Issue


Martine also argues primary assumption of the risk does not apply because, in carrying out her rescue from the mountain, the ski patrol was acting as a common carrier.

Whether the ski patroller rescuing Martine is a common carrier within the meaning of Civil Code section 2168 is a matter of law where the facts are undisputed. (Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1506 (Squaw Valley) [ski resort operating chairlift is common carrier].) The common carrier determination is significant because if it applies, it would impose a duty of the utmost standard of care. (See Squaw Valley, at pp. 1506-1507.) Specifically, a common carrier must “do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstances” (id. at p. 1507) to avoid injuring those that it carries.

Initially, we note that Martine‘s complaint is devoid of any allegations that Heavenly’s ski patroller was acting as a common carrier at the time of her injury, nor does Martine‘s complaint contain facts sufficient to establish the applicability of the common carrier doctrine. Thus, it is unclear whether Martine may use the doctrine’s application to avoid summary judgment on her general negligence claim because Heavenly [*15]  was not required to refute liability on theoretical issues not raised in the complaint. (See Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 793 [“the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate plaintiff’s theories of liability as alleged in the complaint“], italics in original; Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258 [a party seeking to expand issues presented by the complaint must do so by amending the complaint, not by way of opposition papers alone].)

In any event, as recognized in Squaw Valley, Civil Code section 2168 provides the definition of common carrier applicable to tort actions and states “[e]veryone who offers to the public to carry persons, property, or messages, excepting only telegraphic messages is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry.” (Squaw Valley, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 1507.)

In deciding whether Heavenly is a common carrier, a court may properly consider whether (1) the defendant maintains a regular place of business for the purpose of transportation; (2) the defendant advertises its services to the general public; and (3) the defendant charges standard fees for its services. (Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instruction 901; Gradus v. Hanson Aviation (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1048 [applying these factors].)

Here, Martine put forth no facts that Heavenly (1) maintained a business for transporting injured patrons to the bottom of the mountain, [*16]  (2) advertised such service, or (3) charged for that service. Nor did Martine state separate facts alleging that Heavenly offered descent from the mountain to the public generally. Accordingly, Martine‘s common carrier argument necessarily fails. (See Blackman v. Burrows (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 889, 894-895 [refusing to consider factual contentions contained within the memorandum in opposition, but not set forth in a separate statement of facts].) Further, descent from a mountain via rescue sled operated by ski patrol is distinguishable from the ski lifts discussed in Squaw Valley because unlike the lifts that indiscriminately “carry skiers at a fixed rate from the bottom to the top” of the mountain, rescue patrollers, at a patroller’s discretionary election, transport injured skiers without any apparent compensation to the bottom of the mountain. (Compare Squaw Valley, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 1508.)

At oral argument, Martine relied upon Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607 (Regents) to argue Heavenly was liable because either it acted as a common carrier by providing the ski patrol service or it had a special relationship with Martine like a common carrier has with its passengers. Regents does not support either argument. First, the case does not concern a common carrier’s duty; rather, it decided [*17]  whether a university has a special relationship with its students requiring it to protect them from foreseeable violence. (Id. at p. 620.) Nothing in the case suggests a ski resort becomes a common carrier by providing ski patrol to remove injured skiers from the mountain.

Second, Regents cannot be read to create a special relationship imposing an affirmative duty to warn and protect others of inherent dangers where the plaintiff assumes a risk of injury by intentionally engaging in dangerous activity. By assuming the risk, the plaintiff negates the defendant’s duty of care as well as any affirmative duty to protect. “By an express assumption of risk, the potential plaintiff agrees not to expect the potential defendant to act carefully, thus eliminating the potential defendant’s duty of care, and acknowledging the possibility of negligent wrongdoing.” (Coates v. Newhall Land & Farming, Inc. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.) It is no surprise that Regents did not discuss assumption of the risk, as attending a university, unlike skiing, is not an inherently dangerous activity. Regents is irrelevant to this case.


Martine relied on another case at oral argument, Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (Aug. 13, 2018, A142418) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2018 WL 3830002], that also does not aid her. There, [*18]  the court of appeal ruled the primary assumption of the risk doctrine did not bar the plaintiffs’ claim for gross negligence arising from a foot race operator’s alleged breach of its duty to minimize the race’s extrinsic risks without altering the race’s nature. (Id. at p. 14.) The case does not apply here, as Martine did not contend in opposing the summary judgment motion that Heavenly was grossly negligent.

Because we have found the trial court properly granted summary judgment of Martine‘s claims through application of the doctrine of assumption of risk, we need not address Martine‘s argument that the trial court erred in excluding evidence intended to show that Martine‘s rescuer’s conduct was merely negligent under either principles of ordinary negligence or application of the law of common carriers.

IV

The Scope and Amendment of Martine‘s Complaint

Martine argues the trial court erred in not allowing her to amend her complaint to allege negligence and damages arising from a second injury she incurred the same day while being taken off the mountain. Again, we are unpersuaded.

In an attempt to circumvent the application of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, Martine argues that her complaint [*19]  should have been liberally construed to include a second injury occurring while waiting for the tram, offering as a rationale for that argument that her complaint invoked “all head trauma damages” sustained on the day of the accident.

We note first that Martine never filed a motion to amend her complaint nor did she offer a proposed amended pleading.

The allegations of the complaint as set forth, supra, clearly concern only the accident on the ski run wherein it is alleged that her rescuer negligently lost control of the rescue sled thus injuring Martine when she hit a tree. There is no allegation that she sustained additional injuries when she was later dropped when being loaded on the tram. We reject, as did the trial court, her late-to-dinner effort to significantly expand her factual allegations beyond the complaint she filed, which expansion necessarily would import new legal theories and new defenses into the lawsuit she chose to file.

V

The New Trial Motion

Martine argues the trial court erred in denying her new trial motion. Because the decision of the trial court is presumptively correct, Martine has the burden of overcoming that presumption by affirmatively demonstrating trial court [*20]  error. (Lankster v. Alpha Beta Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 678, 683 [ruling on new trial motion is presumptively correct unless error established gives rise to a presumption of prejudice].)

This includes the duty to separately identify under appropriate headings each assertion of trial court error. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) Contrary to this duty, Martine placed argument concerning her motion for a new trial under the heading “Heavenly Has the Substantive Burden on Appeal to Establish that it is Entitled to Summary Judgment.”

Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment is a separate question from whether it also erred in denying the new trial motion. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, 657.) Thus, Martine‘s headings and poor organization undermine this court’s review and cause us to question whether Martine is entitled to review of these assertions at all. (See Phillips v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1061, 1077 [challenge to authenticity not subsumed in heading concerning relevancy and prejudice].)

Putting this issue aside, Martine‘s arguments for a new trial may be divided into two categories: (1) those waived because they were not raised in the trial court and (2) those forfeited because Martine has failed to provide cogent facts and legal analysis demonstrating trial court error.

” ‘Appellate courts are loath to reverse [*21]  a judgment on grounds that the opposing party did not have an opportunity to argue and the trial court did not have an opportunity to consider. [Citation.] In our adversarial system, each party has the obligation to raise any issue or infirmity that might subject the ensuing judgment to attack. . . .’ [Citations.]” (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 [appellant’s failure to raise specific challenges in trial court resulted in their forfeiture on appeal].) Therefore, we will not consider Martine‘s claims concerning irregularities in the proceedings and/or surprise which ordinary prudence would not guard against because Martine‘s motion in the trial court did not argue these issues.

Further, “[i]t is the responsibility of the appellant, here [Martine], to support claims of error with meaningful argument and citation to authority. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785.) When legal argument with citation to authority is not furnished on a particular point, we may treat the point as forfeited and pass it without consideration. (Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1045, fn. 1; Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 656.) In addition, citing cases without any discussion of their application to the present case results in forfeiture. (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862; Tilbury Constructors, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 466, 482-483.) We are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply arguments for the litigants. (Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, 984-985; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 546 [it is not [*22]  the court’s function to serve as the appellant’s backup counsel].)” (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52.)

Martine‘s remaining new trial arguments concerning the discovery of new evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s decision being against the law, and that there was an error in law are forfeited for failure to supply cogent and supported argument with citations to the record affirmatively demonstrating error.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. Heavenly is awarded its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)


HULL , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

ROBIE , J.

 


In most you assume the risk of the risks of the sport (but not all) unless the defendant did something to increase that risk to you.

In this case, the defendant was snowboarding without a retention strap. His snowboard got away from him hitting a young girl. The California Appellate Court held this was not a risk the plaintiff assumed when she went skiing.

Campbell v. Derylo, 75 Cal. App. 4th 823; 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519; 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 915; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8401; 99 Daily Journal DAR 10709

State: California

Plaintiff: Jennifer Campbell

Defendant: Eric Derylo

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Assumption of the Risk

Holding: For the Plaintiff

Year: 1999

Snowboarders argue they don’t have to wear retention straps because their binding keeps their snowboards attached to them. Snowboard bindings are not releasable. That is true until the Snowboarder sits down to adjust his board or boots and takes his bindings off or tears his bindings off his board.

Working at a ski area you see snowboards coming down the hill that have escaped from boarders.

Most state laws also say that you cannot board a lift without a retention strap.

In this case, the plaintiff was skiing down a run at Heavenly Valley Ski resort. She skied to an icy section and took off her skis and hiked down the icy section. She was sitting on the snow putting her skis back on when the accident occurred.

The defendant was snowboarding on the same run when he encountered the icy section. He sat down to take his snowboard off to walk down the icy section when his snowboard got away from him. The snowboard hit the plaintiff in the lower back.

California does not have a skier safety statute. El Dorado County, the county where Heavenly Valley Ski Resort is located does have a county ordinance requiring all skiers and boarders to have a safety retention strap on their skis and boards.

The skier responsibility code also used by Heavenly requires retention straps.

The plaintiff filed this lawsuit, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on assumption of the risk. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

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

The trial court’s supporting argument for granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was:

The trial court concluded that primary assumption of the risk barred plaintiff’s action because injury from runaway snowboards is an “everyday risk in the sport of skiing or snowboarding.” Plaintiff contends that primary assumption of risk does not bar this action because defendant’s use of a snowboard unequipped with a retention strap amounted to conduct outside the inherent nature of the sport.

The Appellate court first went to the deciding case in California (and relied upon in most other states) concerning assumption of the risk. Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 834 P.2d 696]. The California Supreme Court in Knight defined assumption of the risk.

…ordinary duty of care to avoid injury to others is modified by the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk.” Primary assumption of the risk negates duty and constitutes a complete bar to recovery. .) Whether primary assumption of the risk applies depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and the parties’ relationship to that activity. In the context of sports, the question turns on “whether a given injury is within the ‘inherent’ risk of the sport.”

The court then looked at California cases dealing with skiing where assumption of the risk was a basis for the defense.

…assumption of the risk applies to bar recovery for “. . . moguls on a ski run, trees bordering a ski run, snow-covered stumps, and numerous other conditions or obstacles such as variations in terrain, changes in surface or subsurface snow conditions, bare spots, other skiers, snow-making equipment, and myriad other hazards which must be considered inherent in the sport of skiing.”

Knight, Id, however, does not grant immunity to “all defendants participating in sporting activity.” Defendants have a duty of care not to increase the risks to another participate “over and above those inherent in the sport.”

Meaning if you increase the risk of a sport to another participant, you have eliminated the inherent risk from the sport. Inherent risks of a sport are assumed by the participants, whether or not those risks are truly inherent or identified as inherent by statute.

The court then applied a quasi but for test to determine if the actions of the defendants in cases increased the risk unnecessarily. In a baseball game, the actions of the mascot took a spectator’s attention away from the game, and he was hit with a foul bar. The game of baseball could be played without a mascot; therefore, having the mascot increased the risk to the spectators.

In a skiing case you could ski without alcohol. Therefore, skiing drunk increases or changes the risk to the other skiers on the slope placing them at greater risk of a collision. Therefore, the inherent risk of skiing was changed when the defendant was drunk.

The court then looked at the present case as: “the question whether defendant’s use of a snowboard without a retention strap could be found by a jury to have  increased the inherent risk of injury to coparticipants from a runaway snowboard.”

The court found that both the county ordinance and the Heavenly Valley Skier Responsibility Code which was posted at the resort require the use of a retention strap. Therefore, there was a demonstrated recognition that retention straps were a necessary safety equipment to reduce the risk of runaway ski equipment.

A jury could find that, by using a snowboard without the retention strap, in violation of the rules of the ski resort and a county ordinance, defendant unnecessarily increased the danger that his snowboard might escape his control and injure other participants such as plaintiff. The absence of a retention strap could therefore constitute conduct not inherent to the sport which increased the risk of injury.

A test in the drunken skier case upheld this conclusion.

[C]onduct is totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport (and thus any risks resulting from that conduct are not inherent to the sport) if the prohibition of that conduct would neither deter vigorous participation in the sport nor otherwise fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.”

When you assume the risk, those risks are the normal risks, even if they occur infrequently or rarely. More so, the risks you assume in a sport are not changed by the individual actions of one person.

The defendant also argued there was no proximate cause between this action in taking off his board and the injury the plaintiff suffered because the board could have gotten away from him at any time when he was taking it off to walk down the hill. The court looked at statements from the Defendant’s expert witness to refute that argument.

However, the declaration of plaintiff’s expert established that, used properly; the retention strap would have tethered defendant’s leg or boot to his snowboard. Defendant offered no evidence to refute the possibility that the strap would have provided him an opportunity to secure control of the board and prevent the accident.

The court reversed and sent the case back to the lower court for trial because “We conclude that defendant owed a duty of care not to increase the risks of skiing beyond those inherent to the sport.”

So Now What?

The first obvious issue is, do not snowboard without a retention strap or a way to secure your board from getting away. Even if you take your board off to walk down the slope or work on your board/binding you need to secure the board. Skis all have breaks now days, and if you drop a ski on the slope, it will stop.

More importantly, this case looks at the upper limit of assumption of an inherent risk in a sport.

The inherent risks of a sport are those risks that are part and parcel of the sport or activity. Without those risks, the sport would not be what it is. Remove the inherent risks and the sport has no value to the players.

In skiing, most ski area safety statutes have broadened the definition of the inherent risk of skiing to include numerous other risks. Several other state statutes have done the same for other activities.

California has not defined the inherent risk of skiing except through case law. Consequently, each new injury a skier suffers on the slope is defined afterwards by the courts as being an assumed risk or not, rather before the injured guest starts skiing.

Here, the inherent risks of skiing were tightened in California, and I would guess most other courts would come to the same conclusion.

clip_image002What do you think? Leave a comment.

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

 

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

 

 

 

Copyright 2015 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.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, Inherent Risk, Assumption of the Risk, skiing, snowboarding, Heavenly Valley Ski Area, California,

 


Campbell v. Derylo, 75 Cal. App. 4th 823; 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519; 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 915; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8401; 99 Daily Journal DAR 10709

Campbell v. Derylo, 75 Cal. App. 4th 823; 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519; 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 915; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8401; 99 Daily Journal DAR 10709

JENNIFER CAMPBELL, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ERIC DERYLO, Defendant and Respondent.

No. C030104.

COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

75 Cal. App. 4th 823; 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519; 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 915; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8401; 99 Daily Journal DAR 10709

October 14, 1999, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Review Denied January 13, 2000, Reported at: 2000 Cal. LEXIS 132.

PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of El Dorado County. Super. Ct. No. SV1129. Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Judge.

DISPOSITION: The judgment is reversed. Plaintiff shall recover costs.

COUNSEL: Law offices of Edwin E. Williams and Edwin E. Williams for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Caulfield, Davies & Donahue, James R. Donahue and Catherine A. Woodbridge for Defendant and Respondent.

JUDGES: Opinion by Callahan, J., with Kolkey, J., concurring. Blease, Acting P. J., concurred in the result.

OPINION BY: CALLAHAN

OPINION

[*825] [**520] CALLAHAN, J.

Jamie Xelowski, as guardian ad litem of her daughter Jennifer Campbell, a minor, plaintiff, appeals from a judgment granting defendant summary judgment in this negligence action against defendant Eric Derylo. The trial court ruled that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk precluded plaintiff from recovering for injuries [**521] sustained when defendant’s runaway snowboard hit Jennifer in the back. We shall reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 29, 1994, Jennifer, then 11 years old, was skiing down the World Cup [***2] ski run at the Heavenly Valley Ski Resort when she stopped and removed her skis due to ice on the slope. She walked down the remainder of the hill and at the bottom sat down to put her skis back on. At this time defendant Derylo, then age 17, was snowboarding down the same run. He stopped approximately 100 yards from the bottom and removed his snowboard due to fatigue and ice on the slope. After he had removed his feet from the bindings, the snowboard slid out of his control and down the slope, hitting Jennifer in the lower back.

An El Dorado County ordinance, as well as the skier responsibility code posted at Heavenly Valley, require participants to wear a retention strap that attaches to the bindings of the board and is secured to the snowboarder’s leg or boot. For purposes of this motion, it is uncontested that defendant’s snowboard was not equipped with such a strap on the day of the accident.

[*826] Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of assumption of risk. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that the danger of being injured by runaway snowboards was inherent in the sport of skiing and there was no evidence of recklessness on the part of defendant. [***3] Plaintiff appeals.

DISCUSSION

(1) [HN1] On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the reviewing court conducts a de novo examination of the record to determine whether the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law or whether genuine issues of material fact remain. ( [HN2] Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App. 3d 205, 212 [285 Cal. Rptr. 717].)

“We independently review the parties’ papers supporting and opposing the motion, using the same method of analysis as the trial court. . . . [HN3] The moving party bears the burden of proving that the claims of the adverse party are entirely without merit on any legal theory. . . . The opposition must demonstrate only the existence of at least one triable issue of fact . . ., and all doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion.” ( Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1830, 1836 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 913], [***4] citations omitted.)

The trial court concluded that primary assumption of the risk barred plaintiff’s action because injury from runaway snowboards is an “everyday risk in the sport of skiing or snowboarding.” Plaintiff contends that primary assumption of risk does not bar this action because defendant’s use of a snowboard unequipped with a retention strap amounted to conduct outside the inherent nature of the sport.

(2a) In Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 834 P.2d 696] and its companion case Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 339 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30, 834 P.2d 724, 34 A.L.R.5th 769], the Supreme Court concluded that the [HN4] ordinary duty of care to avoid injury to others is modified by the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk.” Primary assumption of the risk negates duty and constitutes a complete bar to recovery. ( [HN5] Knight, supra, at pp. 309-310, 314-316.) Whether primary assumption of the risk applies depends on the nature [***5] of the sport or activity in question and the parties’ relationship to that activity. ( Id. at p. 313.) In the context of sports, the question turns on “whether a given injury is within the ‘inherent’ risk of the sport.” ( Staten v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1628, 1635 [53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 657].)

In Knight, a defendant carelessly knocked over a coparticipant and stepped [**522] on her hand during a touch football game. (3 Cal. 4th at pp. 300-301.) The [*827] conduct was deemed an inherent risk of the sport and therefore recovery was barred under primary assumption of risk. ( Id. at p. 321.) The court in Knight reasoned 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.” ( Id. at p. 318.)

In the context of skiing, courts have held that primary assumption of the risk applies to bar recovery for “. . . moguls on a ski run ( Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 315-316), trees bordering a ski run ( Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 111 [266 Cal. Rptr. 749]), [***6] snow-covered stumps ( Wright v. Mt. Mansfield Lift (D.Vt. 1951) 96 F. Supp. 786), and numerous other conditions or obstacles such as variations in terrain, changes in surface or subsurface snow conditions, bare spots, other skiers, snow-making equipment, and myriad other hazards which must be considered inherent in the sport of skiing.” ( O’Donoghue v. Bear Mountain Ski Resort (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 188, 193 [35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467].) A runaway snowboard resulting from ordinary skier carelessness would seem to fit within the realm of those risks inherent to the sport. 1

1 We quickly dismiss plaintiff’s contention that there is a triable issue over whether plaintiff and defendant were coparticipants. At Heavenly Valley Ski Resort, skiers and snowboarders share the same slope. Both parties were in a designated ski area; moreover, putting on and taking off equipment is an integral part of the sport. Skiing, like ice skating, is a sport which may be engaged in just as well alone as with others. There is no requirement that athletes be acquainted with each other or join together in order to be considered coparticipants within the meaning of Knight. (See Staten v. Superior Court, supra, 45 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1633 [figure skater assumes risk of collision with other skaters even when skating solo, where “proximity to one another created certain risks of collision”].)

[***7] Knight however does not grant unbridled legal immunity to all defendants participating in sporting activity. The Supreme Court has stated that [HN6] “. . . it is well 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.” (3 Cal. 4th at pp. 315-316, italics added.) Thus, even though “defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself,” they may not increase the likelihood of injury above that which is inherent. ( Id. at p. 315.)

The principle is illustrated in the skiing context in Freeman v. Hale (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 1388, 1396 [36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418]. In Freeman the defendant had consumed alcoholic beverages to the point of inebriation prior to skiing. While on the slopes defendant collided with plaintiff coparticipant, rendering her a quadriplegic. ( Id. at p. 1391.) The defendant claimed he was immune from liability because the plaintiff had assumed [***8] the risk of harm by participating in the sport. (Ibid.) The Fourth District reversed summary judgment for the defendant.

[*828] While conceding that inadvertent collisions are an inherent risk of skiing and therefore assumed by participants (30 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1395), Freeman pointed out that the consumption of alcoholic beverages, an activity not ordinarily associated with skiing, may have unnecessarily increased the risk of collision. Furthermore, “the increased risks presented by the consumption of alcohol are not inherent in the sport of skiing.” ( Id. at p. 1396.) A skier has a duty not to increase the risks of the sport beyond those inherent, and summary judgment is improper where the [**523] circumstances suggest that the defendant engaged in activity that increased the risk. ( Id. at p. 1397.)

In Lowe v. California League of Prof. Baseball (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 112, 123 [65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105], the plaintiff was a spectator at a minor league baseball game. He was sitting in an uncovered section of the stadium when a foul ball struck him in the face. Immediately prior to being struck, the [***9] team’s mascot was behind the plaintiff and his tail was hitting the plaintiff on the head and shoulders. The plaintiff turned to see what the mascot was doing and as he was turning back around to face the field, a foul ball hit him. ( Id. at pp. 116-118.)

While agreeing that the risk of being hit with a foul ball was inherent in the sport of baseball and therefore assumed by spectators, the court, relying on Knight, held that the defendant had a duty not to increase the risk of a spectator being struck. ( Lowe v. California League of Prof. Baseball, supra, 56 Cal. App. 4th at p. 123.) Summary judgment was improper because, “. . . whether such antics [by the mascot] increased the inherent risk to plaintiff is an issue of fact to be resolved at trial.” (Ibid.; see also Branco v. Kearny Moto Park, Inc. (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 184, 193 [43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 392] [bicycle jump’s unsafe design may have increased risk to bicycle racers].)

Finally, in Yancey v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 558 [33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777], the court ruled that a participant in discus throwing owed a duty to a coparticipant [***10] to ascertain that the target area was clear before releasing the discus onto the playing field. In reversing summary judgment, the court found that the inherent risks of discus throwing do not include being injured by a discus thrown with no regard for its potential path. ( Id. at p. 566.)

(3a) Here, we are confronted with the question whether defendant’s use of a snowboard without a retention strap could be found by a jury to have [*829] increased the inherent risk of injury to coparticipants from a runaway snowboard. 2 The factual showing below demonstrates triable issues of fact.

2 At the hearing on the motion, plaintiff’s counsel listed four separate acts or omissions by defendant which he contended went beyond “ordinary careless conduct” and increased the inherent risk to Jennifer: (1) failure to wear a retention strap; (2) taking the board off on a steep slope without consideration for downhill skiers; (3) failure to move to the edge of the slope before removing his snowboard; and (4) failure to leave one foot in his snowboard and walk down the slope. This appeal focuses solely on the absence of a retention strap. We agree with plaintiff’s implicit concession that each of the other instances of misfeasance mentioned by counsel constitutes mere ordinary negligence which is not actionable under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.

[***11] Both El Dorado County Ordinance No. 9.20.040, subdivision A6, and the skier responsibility code which was posted at Heavenly Valley Ski Resort, require the use of a retention strap. These safety regulations demonstrate a recognition that retention straps reduce the risk of injury from runaway ski equipment. As the declaration of plaintiff’s expert explains, this requirement is especially important when it comes to snowboards because, unlike skis which are equipped with automatic braking devices, snowboards have no built-in stopping mechanism. A jury could find that, by using a snowboard without the retention strap, in violation of the rules of the ski resort and a county ordinance, defendant unnecessarily increased the danger that his snowboard might escape his control and injure other participants such as plaintiff. The absence of a retention strap could therefore constitute conduct not inherent to the sport which increased the risk of injury. 3

3 We decline to address the issue of whether Evidence Code section 669, read in conjunction with El Dorado County Ordinance No. 9.20.040, subdivision A6, establishes an independent duty of care which overrides the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The Supreme Court granted review in Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1063 [68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859, 946 P.2d 817], purportedly to settle this question, but ended up avoiding it by concluding that the ordinance evinced “no clear intent to modify common law assumption of risk principles.” ( Id. at p. 1069.) As evidenced by the four separate concurring opinions in Cheong (including one by the author of the majority opinion, Justice Chin), there appears to be no clear consensus on the high court about this issue.

[***12] [**524] (2b) Our conclusion is consistent with the test advanced by Freeman to determine what risks are inherent in a sport: [HN7] “[C]onduct is totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport (and thus any risks resulting from that conduct are not inherent to the sport) if the prohibition of that conduct would neither deter vigorous participation in the sport nor otherwise fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.” (30 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1394.) Freeman found that “[t]he consumption of alcoholic beverages could be prohibited during or shortly before skiing without fundamentally altering the nature of the sport.” ( Id. at p. 1396.) The doctrine of primary assumption of risk was not an absolute bar to recovery because the risks associated with skiing while under the influence of alcohol are not inherent in the sport and thus not assumed by fellow participants.

[*830] In Lowe the court used similar reasoning, to conclude that “. . . the antics of the mascot are not an essential or integral part of the playing of a baseball [***13] game,” and “the game can be played in the absence of such antics.” (56 Cal. App. 4th at p. 123.)

Thus, “. . . the key inquiry here is whether the risk which led to plaintiff’s injury involved some feature or aspect of the game which is inevitable or unavoidable in the actual playing of the game.” ( Lowe v. California League of Prof. Baseball, supra, 56 Cal. App. 4th at p. 123.) (3b) Use of a mandatory retention strap would not impede or alter the sport of snowboarding. On the contrary, retention straps can be used “without fundamentally altering the nature of the sport.” ( Freeman v. Hale, supra, 30 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1396.) Furthermore, use of a retention strap would in no way chill or deter vigorous participation in skiing or snowboarding. ( Knight v. Jewitt, supra, 3 Cal. 4th at p. 317.)

Defendant claims that he was entitled to summary judgment in any event, because he would necessarily have removed the strap in order to walk down the slope. According to this argument, the board would have hit plaintiff regardless of whether it was equipped with a strap. Defendant is essentially arguing that proximate cause [***14] was lacking as a matter of law.

However, the declaration of plaintiff’s expert established that, used properly, the retention strap would have tethered defendant’s leg or boot to his snowboard. Defendant offered no evidence to refute the possibility that the strap would have provided him an opportunity to secure control of the board and prevent the accident. The record therefore presents a triable issue as to whether defendant’s use of a snowboard without a retention strap was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Since all inferences in a summary judgment dispute are to be drawn in favor of the party opposing the motion ( Tully v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 654, 660 [65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 545]), defendant did not eliminate proximate cause as a triable issue.

We conclude that defendant owed a duty of care not to increase the risks of skiing beyond those inherent to the sport. The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is not an absolute bar to recovery on these facts, because the lack of a retention strap could be found by a jury to have increased the risk of harm to plaintiff beyond what was inherent in the sport of skiing. Defendant [***15] also did not establish as a matter of law that the lack of a retention strap was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, summary judgment was improperly granted.

[*831] [**525] DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed. Plaintiff shall recover costs.

Kolkey, J., concurred. Blease, Acting P. J., concurred in the result.

Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied January 13, 2000. Kennard, J., and Chin, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.