|
4154 Defendant's snowboard racing down a run he had never used before at an extremely fast pace while looking back to check the position of other racers raises a triable issue of whether defendant's collision with plaintiff, a skier standing on a flat area of the run, resulted from a risk inherent in skiing and snowboarding, and therefore covered by the principle of primary assumption of the risk, or from recklessness; without knowledge that a snowboarder would act recklessly, neither a ski resort nor the coach of the snowboarder's high school snowboarding team has a duty to protect a third person against such recklessness.CitationLACKNER v NORTH (Snowboard Collision) 135 CA4 1188 [See: REST 2d Torts 500; Knight v Jewett 3 C4 296, T/AT 10/92; Yancey v Superior Court 28 CA4 558, T/AT 10/94]
|
|
