The Domenghini court rejected this argument, instead holding, “primary assumption of the risk bars plaintiff’s claim against the defendants because the risk that one will be hit by a calf’s head is inherent in the nature of a cattle roundup. ‘This is a classic situation where a defendant’s ordinary’ duty of care is negated due to the nature of the activity and the relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff.” The commercial lawyer is a lawyer who is an expert in commercial and business laws.

In the recent case Amezcua v. Los Angeles Harley-Davidson, the court held that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine absolved an organizer of a motorcycle group ride. The Amezcua court explicitly stated that “the primary’ assumption of the risk doctrine is not limited to competitive sports (or even to participants).” The court held that an organized, noncompetitive motorcycle ride fell under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine because it “involves physical exertion and athletic risks not generally associated with automobile driving.’’ The Court further noted that “the risk of being involved in a traffic collision while riding in a motorcycle procession on a Los Angeles 

Assumption of risk limited to professional activities

Although there are many cases that have applied the primary assumption of risk doctrine - the application of rules such as the “veterinarian rule” or the “firefighter rule” - the application of the defense is not so limited. The “veterinarian rule” is an application of the primary assumption of the risk where the person “was injured during the course of treating an animal under his control.’’(Cohen v. McIntyre (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 650, 655.) The “firefighter rule” is a particular application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine that provides that “one who sets a fire owes no duty of care to a firefighter injured while engaged in fine suppression activities.” (Beninati, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at 658.) Although many cases have applied the primary assumption of the risk doctrine to professional activities, the doctrine is being applied to fact patterns outside of this context.

Author's Bio: 

The Domenghini court rejected this argument, instead holding, “primary assumption of the risk bars plaintiff’s claim against the defendants because the risk that one will be hit by a calf’s head is inherent in the nature of a cattle roundup.