Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialsummary judgmentduty of care
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealsummary judgmentrespondentappellant

Related Cases

Gahan v. Mineola Union Free School Dist., 241 A.D.2d 439, 660 N.Y.S.2d 144, 119 Ed. Law Rep. 1115
View Case »
Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296, 834 P.2d 696, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2
View Case »
Crespin v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, 147 N.M. 62, 216 P.3d 827, 2009-NMCA-105
View Case »
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, 705 N.W.2d 746
View Case »
Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57, 2010-2 Trade Cases P 77,111
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mayes v. La Sierra University, 73 Cal.App.5th 686, 288 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 398 Ed. Law Rep. 1046, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 463, 2022 Daily Journal D.A.R. 340

Facts

Monica Mayes attended an intercollegiate baseball game at La Sierra University on April 22, 2018, where she was struck in the face by a foul ball, resulting in serious injuries including skull fractures and brain damage. Mayes was seated in a grassy area along the third-base line behind the dugout, which lacked protective netting. She alleged that La Sierra was negligent for failing to install protective netting, provide sufficient screened seating, warn spectators about the lack of protection, and exercise crowd control. The university moved for summary judgment, claiming the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred her negligence claim.

On April 22, 2018, plaintiff and appellant Monica Mayes was struck in the face by a foul ball while attending an intercollegiate baseball game between two private universities, Marymount University (Marymount) and defendant and respondent La Sierra University (La Sierra). Mayes suffered skull fractures and brain damage, among other injuries.

Issue

Did La Sierra University meet its burden for summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk doctrine in the negligence claim brought by Monica Mayes?

Did La Sierra University meet its burden for summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk doctrine in the negligence claim brought by Monica Mayes?

Rule

A defendant moving for summary judgment based on an affirmative defense must first make a prima facie evidentiary showing that there is a complete defense to the plaintiff's action. If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact. The primary assumption of risk doctrine limits the duty of care owed by operators of inherently dangerous activities, such as sports, to not increase the risks of injury beyond those inherent in the activity.

Analysis

The court found that La Sierra University did not meet its initial burden of showing that it was entitled to summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk. The evidence presented by Mayes indicated that there were reasonable steps the university could have taken to minimize the risk of injury, such as installing protective netting and providing adequate crowd control. The existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the university's duty to protect spectators precluded summary judgment.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of La Sierra University, concluding that there were triable issues of material fact regarding the university's negligence.

For reasons we explain, La Sierra did not meet its burden of showing that the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred Mayes's negligence claim.

Who won?

Monica Mayes prevailed in her appeal against La Sierra University. The appellate court determined that the university failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The court highlighted that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the university's duty to provide safety measures for spectators, which warranted further examination in a trial setting.

Monica Mayes prevailed in her appeal against La Sierra University, as the appellate court determined that the university failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk doctrine.

You must be