## Facts

- James Patterson, an adult student, enrolled in a Sacramento City Unified School District heavy-duty truck driver training program.
- The program included classroom instruction, hands-on training, and on-the-road experience, and required participation in community-service projects as part of training.
- During hands-on training, Patterson’s class was assigned to retrieve wooden bleachers, load them onto a flatbed trailer attached to a tractor, and transport them to a tournament site.
- The classroom portion covered freight loading only generally and did not address how to load a flatbed trailer; instructors characterized loading as largely “hands-on” and based on common sense.
- The project allegedly proceeded without detailed instruction or close supervision regarding the specific bleacher-loading task.
- Patterson climbed onto the trailer to pull bleachers up while other students pushed from below; after a final push, Patterson fell backward off the trailer and was injured.
- Patterson sued the District for negligent supervision and instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred an adult student’s negligence claim for injuries sustained during a required, hands-on vocational training/community-service task.
2. Whether a public school district owed an adult student a duty of reasonable care in supervising and instructing students during such training, or whether that duty was negated by primary assumption of risk.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper where the record supported a factual dispute about inadequate instruction and supervision for the task that caused the injury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for the District and remanded for further proceedings.
- Primary assumption of risk did not categorically apply to the assigned bleacher-loading task in this instructional setting.
- The District owed Patterson a duty of reasonable care in conducting and supervising the required training activity.
- The evidence permitted an inference that inadequate instruction and supervision could have contributed to the injury, creating triable issues that precluded summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Primary assumption of risk turns on the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to it; it applies where certain risks are inherent and cannot be eliminated without altering the activity’s fundamental nature.
- When primary assumption of risk applies, it limits duty so that a defendant generally has no duty to protect against inherent risks, but must not unreasonably increase risks beyond those inherent.
- In a nonrecreational, instructional program controlled by a public school district, required hands-on training tasks are not automatically treated as “inherent-risk” activities subject to a no-duty rule.
- Public school entities generally owe students a duty of reasonable care to protect against reasonably foreseeable injuries; adult status may affect the duty’s scope but does not eliminate it as a matter of law.
- Where reasonable instruction and supervision could reduce the relevant risk, primary assumption of risk does not bar ordinary negligence claims at the duty stage.

## Conclusion

The court held that an adult student injured during a required vocational training/community-service assignment was not barred by primary assumption of risk from pursuing a negligence claim, because the district retained a duty of reasonable care and the record supported triable issues regarding inadequate instruction and supervision.


Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 155 Cal. App. 4th 821, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 337 (Ct. App. 2007)