## Facts

- Jose Luis Avila played baseball for Rio Hondo Community College in a preseason road game against Citrus College.
- After a Rio Hondo pitcher hit a Citrus batter, a Citrus pitcher later threw an inside pitch that struck Avila in the head and cracked his batting helmet.
- Avila alleged the pitch was an intentional retaliatory “beanball,” or at least negligent, and that he experienced dizziness, numbness, and pain.
- Avila alleged he remained in the game briefly, then left the field; he claimed no one provided or summoned medical care at the bench.
- Avila sued multiple defendants and alleged the Citrus Community College District was negligent for failing to (1) provide medical care, (2) supervise/control the Citrus pitcher, (3) provide adequate umpires or supervisory personnel to prevent retaliatory pitching, and (4) provide adequate protective equipment.

## Issues

1. Whether California Government Code § 831.7 (hazardous recreational activity immunity) bars a claim against a public community college district for injuries during a supervised intercollegiate baseball game.
2. If § 831.7 does not apply, whether the host district owed and breached a duty of care to a visiting player under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held § 831.7 did not apply to injuries sustained during supervised school sports.
- The Court nevertheless held the District was not liable because primary assumption of risk barred the negligence claims on the facts alleged.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal and directed the trial court to sustain the District’s demurrer.

## Legal Principles

- Government Code § 831.7 is directed at premises-liability exposure for public entities making property available for recreational use; it does not extend to supervised school athletic programs that are part of an educational institution’s activities.
- Under primary assumption of risk, a defendant generally owes no duty to protect a sports participant from risks inherent in the sport; liability may exist only if the defendant increases risks beyond those inherent in the activity.
- In baseball, being hit by a pitch, including an intentionally thrown inside pitch, is an inherent risk that cannot be eliminated without altering the sport.
- A host school’s role in staging a game does not, by itself, create a duty to reduce inherent risks of play.
- Allegations that the host failed to supervise pitchers or provide adequate officiating do not state a claim absent facts showing the host increased the inherent risk of being hit by a pitch.
- A host institution does not have a duty to provide medical care to a visiting player where the visiting team’s own personnel are present and the host has not undertaken responsibility for the player’s treatment.
- Claims based on defective protective equipment require allegations that the host supplied inadequate equipment in a way that increased risk; generalized allegations are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that statutory hazardous-recreation immunity did not apply to supervised intercollegiate athletics, but it dismissed the negligence claims because the alleged injury resulted from an inherent risk of baseball and the host district was not alleged to have increased that risk or assumed a duty to provide medical care or equipment beyond ordinary participation in the game.


Avila v. Citrus Cmty. Coll. Dist., 38 Cal. 4th 148 (Cal. 2006)