San Diego Law Review
In this Article, we hope to untangle the confused no-duty-for-sports rules the court has created over the past decade and a half. We will argue that much of this confusion stems from the court's carrying over terminology and concepts of the traditional assumption of the risk defense. In Part II, we set forth the law of assumption of the risk as it stood prior to the court's decision in Knight. Parts III through V then carefully trace the adoption and elaboration of the no-duty-for-sports doctrine. These Parts attempt to expose the roots of the confusion that surround this doctrine. In Part VI, we suggest ways in which the court could clarify duty analysis in this area while retaining the basic analytic and policy framework laid out in Knight. In Part VII, the conclusion, we briefly review the steps the court could take to achieve this goal.
Edmund Ursin & John N. Carter,
Clarifying Duty: California's No-Duty-for-Sports Regime,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol45/iss2/3