|
1120 REVIEW DENIED An instructor of the sport of rock climbing did not have a duty to protect a student against inherent risks of the activity, and there was a primary assumption of the risk, so long as the student was not taken beyond the level of his rock climbing experience and capability.CitationREGENTS v SUPERIOR COURT (Rock Climbing) 41 CA4 1040 [See: Knight v Jewett 3 C4 296, T/AT 10/92; Ford v Gouin 3 C4 339, T/AT 10/92; Stimson v Carlson 11 CA4 1201, T/AT 2/93; Tan v Goddard 13 CA4 1528, T/AT 5/93; Galardi v Seahorse 16 CA4 817, T/AT 8/93; Wattenbarger v Cincinnati Reds 28 CA4 746, T/AT 11/94; Morgan v Fuji 32 CA4 127, T/AT 5/95]
|
|
