## Facts

- Olivia Kahn, a 14-year-old novice on a high school junior varsity swim team, attended a competitive meet at a school pool approximately 3.5 feet deep.
- She performed practice racing dives from a starting block into the shallow water and fractured her neck on her third practice dive.
- Kahn alleged the swim coach failed to provide instruction on safely diving into a shallow racing pool and failed to supervise her adequately.
- Kahn also alleged the coach insisted she dive at the meet despite her stated fear, lack of experience, and an earlier assurance that she could start races from inside the pool.
- Kahn testified that minutes before the meet the coach required a starting-block dive; she panicked, pleaded to be excused, and the coach refused.
- Kahn offered expert evidence that diving from a block into 3.5 feet of water is extremely dangerous and particularly hazardous for an untrained swimmer, and relied on safety materials as evidence of the coaching standard of care.

## Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk bars a student-athlete’s negligence claim against a school district and coach for injuries during competitive swimming.
2. In the coach-student context, whether the coach’s duty is limited to avoiding intentional injury or reckless conduct totally outside the ordinary range of the sport.
3. Whether the evidence created a triable issue that the coach acted recklessly by increasing risks beyond those inherent in competitive swimming, precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held primary assumption of risk applies to coaching decisions tied to training, instruction, and supervision, limiting the coach’s duty to refraining from intentional injury or reckless conduct totally outside the ordinary activity of the sport.
- Viewing the record in Kahn’s favor, the court concluded a reasonable fact-finder could determine the coach acted recklessly by requiring a fearful, untrained novice to perform shallow-water racing dives without adequate instruction or supervision.
- Because a triable issue existed on recklessness, summary judgment on primary assumption of risk grounds was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Under primary assumption of risk in sports, participants generally assume inherent risks; liability turns on whether the defendant increased risks beyond those inherent in the sport.
- For coaches and instructors, when liability rests on decisions about challenging an athlete, instruction, or supervision, the applicable duty is limited: no liability absent intentional injury or conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the ordinary activity involved in the sport.
- Primary assumption of risk does not bar claims where evidence supports a finding that a coach or instructor intentionally or recklessly increased the risk of injury beyond inherent risks.
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor; if evidence would allow a reasonable finding of reckless risk-increase, the claim proceeds to the fact-finder.

## Conclusion

The court held that primary assumption of risk limits a coach’s duty to avoiding intentional or reckless risk-enhancing conduct, and that evidence the coach compelled an untrained, fearful novice to perform shallow-water starting-block dives without proper instruction or supervision created a triable issue of recklessness, requiring reversal of summary judgment.


Kahn v. E. Side Union High Sch. Dist., 31 Cal. 4th 990, 75 P.3d 30 (Cal. 2003)