## Facts

- Kendra Knight and Michael Jewett attended a Super Bowl party and, during halftime, joined others in an informal coed touch-football game on a dirt lot using a small football.
- No explicit rules were discussed before play.
- During the game, the players collided; Knight told Jewett not to play so roughly (or to be careful), and she believed he acknowledged the request.
- On the next play, Jewett jumped to intercept a pass, collided with Knight while coming down, knocked her over, and stepped on her hand.
- Knight suffered serious hand injuries, including amputation of her little finger, and sued for negligence (and related intentional-tort claims).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Jewett on an assumption-of-risk theory; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

## Issues

1. How does assumption of risk operate after California’s adoption of comparative fault, including whether it remains a complete bar in some circumstances?
2. What duty of care does a participant in a sport owe to another participant regarding risks inherent in the activity?
3. In an informal touch-football game, did Jewett owe Knight a duty to protect her from the risk that caused her injury?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Jewett.
- The court held that primary assumption of risk remains a complete bar to negligence because it reflects the absence of a duty as to particular inherent risks.
- The court held that secondary assumption of risk is not a complete defense after comparative fault; it is treated as comparative negligence when the defendant owed and breached a duty.
- In sports and recreational activities, co-participants generally have no duty to protect each other from risks inherent in the sport; liability requires intentional injury or reckless conduct outside the ordinary range of the activity.
- The collision and step-on injury were inherent risks of touch football, and Jewett’s conduct was not shown to be reckless or intentional; therefore, he owed no duty as to that risk.

## Legal Principles

- Primary assumption of risk applies when, given the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship, the defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from the specific risk that caused the injury; it bars negligence liability.
- Secondary assumption of risk applies when the defendant owes and breaches a duty but the plaintiff knowingly encounters the risk created by that breach; it is handled through comparative fault rather than a complete defense.
- In active sports, imposing ordinary negligence duties for inherent risks would change the nature of participation; co-participants are liable only for intentional injury or reckless conduct totally outside ordinary play.
- The duty analysis is objective and turns on whether the risk is inherent in the activity and whether the conduct exceeds ordinary participation, not on individualized warnings or the plaintiff’s subjective understanding.

## Conclusion

Because physical contact and accidental collisions are inherent in touch football and Jewett’s conduct did not constitute reckless or intentional misconduct outside ordinary play, he owed no duty to protect Knight from the risk that caused her injury; primary assumption of risk therefore barred her negligence claim, and summary judgment was properly affirmed.


Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992)