| 词条 | Knight v. Jewett |
| 释义 |
|Litigants= Knight v. Jewett |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate= August 24 |DecideYear= 1992 |FullName= Kendra Knight v. Michael Jewett |Citations= {{law report|3|Cal.4th|296}} (1992) 834 P.2d 696 (1992) 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 |Prior= {{law report|275|Cal.Rptr.|292}} (1990) (affirmed) |Subsequent= |Holding= Assumption of risk is still a defense to liability even under a comparative negligence scheme. |ChiefJudge=Malcolm M. Lucas |AssociateJudges=Edward A. Panelli, Joyce L. Kennard, Stanley Mosk, Armand Arabian, Ronald M. George, Marvin R. Baxter |Plurality= George |JoinPlurality= Lucas, Arabian |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence/Dissent= Mosk |Concurrence/Dissent2= Panelli |JoinConcurrence/Dissent2= Baxter |Dissent= Kennard |JoinDissent= |LawsApplied= }}Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), was a case decided by the California Supreme Court, ruling that the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California did not completely eliminate the defense of assumption of risk in an action for negligence.[1] BackgroundThe plaintiff sued for personal injuries after the defendant stepped on her hand during a touch football game. DecisionThe court recognized two categories of assumption of risk. One was primary assumption of risk in which the defendant owes no duty of care to protect the plaintiff from the risk that caused the injury. The other is secondary assumption of risk in which the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, who knowingly encounters the risk created by the defendant's breach of that duty. The court held that secondary assumption of risk had been merged into the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California but that primary assumption of risk could still serve as a defense to negligence. The court determined that in a touch football game, the only duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is to not be reckless and wanton. Because the plaintiff was injured in the normal course of the touch football game, the injury fell under primary assumption of risk, and she was barred from recovery.[2] References1. ^Henderson, J.A. et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2007, p. 475 2. ^Henderson, p. 476 5 : Negligence case law|United States tort case law|1992 in United States case law|California state case law|1992 in California |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。