Reported / Citable
Background
A seventh grader at a Clovis Unified intermediate school, who was also on the junior varsity basketball team, enrolled in an optional class called Basketball PE that satisfied the school's physical education requirement. Enrollment required approval from a guidance counselor and one of the two coaches, who screened for proficiency and commitment. The class was reserved for team members and students hoping to join the teams, and it was not listed in the course catalog. Its instructors also coached basketball at the neighboring high school, and the class operated much like additional team practice.
On December 23, 2022, during free-time shooting, the instructor contested and blocked the student's shot, and the student fractured his wrist. The student testified the instructor came from his blind side and karate-chopped his arm. The instructor testified he faced the student, moved with him, and blocked the shot with an outstretched hand, so that the ball wedged and bent the hand backward. Eyewitness accounts differed, and a defense radiologist said the fractures were typical of backward extension. Assault and negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims were dismissed before trial. The jury heard the negligence, battery and respondeat superior claims. The trial court allowed the primary assumption of the risk defense and instructed that the student had to prove the instructor intended injury or acted recklessly, meaning conduct entirely outside the range of ordinary coaching activity. By a 9-to-3 vote the jury answered no on that question, and it unanimously found no intent to harm on the battery claim. After a denied new trial motion, the student appealed only the negligence verdict.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, reviewing duty and the instructions de novo. It rejected a bright-line rule that a technically curricular class cannot support the defense. Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School Dist. turned mainly on involuntary participation in a mandatory general PE class that rotated through sports. Here the class was optional, selective and tied to the team program, and the student had effectively opted out of the rotating general PE sports. The court found the secondary reasoning in Hemady v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., that ordinary negligence governs injuries during school hours, arguably dicta and unpersuasive, because the cases it cited concerned supervision rather than this defense. The court also noted that the duty of supervision under Education Code section 44807 does not foreclose the defense. The student did not dispute that a wrist injury from a blocked shot is an inherent risk of basketball, and the court reasoned that a contrary rule would discourage schools from offering sport-specific classes.
On instructions, the court explained that pattern instructions are not themselves the law. It traced CACI No. 471's history and concluded that option 2, the unreasonably increased risk alternative, is an overbroad and incomplete paraphrase of Eriksson v. Nunnink, which involved a physically unfit participant or unsafe equipment. Nothing like that occurred here. Greener v. M. Phelps, Inc. was limited to combat or grappling sports where the instructor participated without demonstrating or instructing, and the court expressed no view on whether Greener was rightly decided. Option 1 fit both the student's karate-chop theory and his claim that the instructor came out of nowhere with great force. Whether the instructor acted outside the ordinary range of conduct was a jury question, and the jury decided it for the defense.
Key Takeaways
- A school sports class can fall within primary assumption of the risk when enrollment is optional and screened and the class functions as an extension of an extracurricular team program.
- The inquiry looks to function and voluntariness rather than the curricular or extracurricular label, and Nigel B. was read as resting mainly on involuntary participation.
- In ordinary coaching cases the plaintiff must show intent to injure or conduct totally outside the range of ordinary coaching activity, as CACI No. 471 option 1 provides.
- Option 2 of CACI No. 471 was treated as a narrow alternative that did not apply where there was no unfit participant, unsafe equipment or altered game conditions.
- The ruling does not shield coaches from intentional or reckless conduct, which stayed a jury question.
Why It Matters
The opinion is published and, as a Court of Appeal decision, carries precedential weight statewide. It gives school districts and coaches authority that a class period during school hours does not by itself remove the primary assumption of the risk defense for sport-specific instruction. It also adds a detailed account of how CACI No. 471 developed, including the December 2025 revision, which the court noted but did not rely on.
The decision leaves open how courts should treat mandatory, general PE classes, and it does not decide when option 2 is proper beyond saying the pattern wording is overbroad. It did not resolve any conflict with Hemady or Nigel B. but distinguished or criticized them. The student's battery claim was not before the court, and the judgment was affirmed in full.