Pollak, Vida & Barer

In Yzaguirre v. Clovis Unified School District, ordered published October 21, 2026, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict for the defendant district. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old in seventh grade. He played basketball on the school’s junior varsity team and on a separate travel team outside school. The school required students to take a physical education class, in accordance with the Education Code. Besides a general PE course, the school had PE classes exclusively devoted to particular courses, such as basketball, that could be taken in lieu of general PE. Enrollment in basketball PE was optional and voluntary, and was restricted to students who were approved by faculty, and was reserved for members or prospective members of the school’s JV and varsity teams. While shooting a basket, one of the instructors blocked the shot. The plaintiff alleged the instructor “karate-chopped” the student’s arm; the instructor testified that he blocked the ball with his hand, causing the ball to wedge back and cause the plaintiff’s hand to shoot backwards. Witnesses differed on what happened. The student sustained a broken wrist. The student sued the instructor and the school district. Over the plaintiff’s objections, the trial court allowed the defendants to assert the defense of primary assumption of the risk. The case went to trial. The jury was instructed that the plaintiff needed to show that the instructor either intended to cause the plaintiff’s injuries, or acted recklessly in that his conduct was entirely outside the range of ordinary activity involved in coaching or instructing the sport. The jury answered no to both questions. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the defense of primary assumption of the risk was inapplicable as a matter of law, and alternatively that the trial court made an instructional error.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applied. Case law approves applying the doctrine to students voluntarily participating in extracurricular school sports activities. The plaintiff contended that the doctrine does not apply to curricular activities, citing case law. The appellate court distinguished the decisions holding that the doctrine does not apply to curricular activities as not truly voluntary. The court rejected a bright-line distinction between curricular and extracurricular activities, and instead focused on whether the participation was voluntary or compelled. The basketball PE class here was neither open to all students nor mandatory for any student. While it satisfied a compulsory PE requirement, it was in all other respects optional. Even members of the basketball team were not requiret ot take the class. The plaintiff opted out of all other sports that would normally be required to satisfy the PE obligation, and voluntarily chose to exclusively play basketball. For all or nearly all practical purposes, basketball PE was an extension of the school’s extracurricluar baskebaball program. Primary assumption of the risk is a policy-driven doctrine. The continuing feasibility of specialized PE classes is supportive of legitimate educational objectives, and is a genuine policy concern. Under the circumstances of this case, primary assumption of the risk was a viable defense. The court further ruled that the CACI instructions given for primary assumption of the risk in this case were proper.