Primary assumption of risk can apply to a voluntary school basketball class, the Fifth District holds
Does primary assumption of risk apply to an injury in a school PE class? In Yzaguirre v. Clovis Unified School Dist., the Fifth District held it can, when the class is a voluntary, restricted-enrollment basketball class tied to the school's teams. The court affirmed defense verdicts, declined to follow the broader reasoning of an earlier decision, and held the jury was properly instructed under CACI No. 471.
What happened in Yzaguirre
A middle school student was hurt in December 2022 during a basketball physical education class when an adult instructor contested and blocked his shot during free time. The parties disputed how the injury happened.
The class was not general PE. It was an optional alternative that did not appear in the course catalog, and enrollment required approval from a guidance counselor and a coach. The students were members of the school's junior varsity or varsity basketball teams, or students who wanted to join them, and the class worked as an extension of the basketball program. General PE at the school rotated through several sports in three-week units.
The student, through a guardian ad litem, sued the instructor and the school district. Claims for assault and for negligent hiring, supervision and retention were eventually dismissed. The trial court allowed a primary assumption of risk defense over the plaintiff's objection. The jury found for the defendants on negligence and battery, and the trial court denied a new trial. The appeal challenged only the negligence verdict.
Does primary assumption of risk apply to a curricular school sports class?
The court framed two questions: whether the defense can apply to a curricular sports class, and whether the jury was properly instructed. Its answer: “We answer yes to both questions.” Both questions were reviewed independently, as questions of law.
Primary assumption of risk is a no-duty doctrine. Coaches and instructors owe a limited duty, and liability generally requires that the instructor intended to injure the student or acted recklessly, in a way totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in coaching the sport. The plaintiff argued the defense could not apply because the class was part of the school curriculum, relying mainly on Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School Dist.
The court rejected a bright-line rule based on whether an activity is curricular or extracurricular, saying such a test would “unduly emphasize form over substance.” Citing Gregory v. Cott, it noted that primary assumption of risk “is analyzed in terms of function, not formality.” It read Nigel B. as turning on involuntary participation in a mandatory PE class in which students could not opt out of particular sports, and found the voluntary, restricted enrollment here made the case different.
The court also addressed Hemady v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. It noted that case's holding that being struck by a golf club is not an inherent risk of golf, but described its secondary reasoning about injuries during school hours as arguably dicta and, in any event, not persuasive.
Blocked shots and physical contact, the court reasoned, are inherent in basketball, as are differences in size and skill among players. It also weighed the concern that imposing liability for this class, but not for the same activity after school, could lead schools to drop or dilute sport-specific classes. Whether the instructor acted outside the ordinary range of conduct was left to the jury.
Was the jury properly instructed under CACI No. 471?
The trial court gave option 1 of CACI No. 471, which asks whether the instructor intended to cause injury or acted recklessly. The plaintiff argued for option 2, the unreasonable-increase-in-risk alternative, relying on Greener v. M. Phelps, Inc. The court found Greener “manifestly inapposite,” noting that its holding was limited to combat or grappling sports in which the instructor takes part without providing demonstration or instruction, which did not describe this hands-on basketball class. It also noted that the plaintiff's own trial theory was intentional harm, which option 1 covered. “Therefore, the jury was properly instructed.”
The result
The disposition reads: “The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.” The opinion was filed September 23, 2026 and certified for publication on October 21, 2026.
When a defense verdict rests on a duty ruling or a jury instruction, the issues on appeal are legal ones. See our appeals and writs practice and our civil litigation practice.
Key takeaways
- Primary assumption of risk can apply to a curricular class when enrollment is voluntary and the class is an extension of a school sports program.
- The court rejected a curricular versus extracurricular bright line, analyzing the defense by function rather than formality.
- Nigel B. was distinguished because it involved a mandatory PE class, and Hemady's broader school-hours reasoning was found unpersuasive.
- CACI No. 471, option 1, was the correct instruction for a hands-on basketball instructor, and Greener was found inapposite.
- Duty and jury-instruction questions were reviewed independently as questions of law.
Why this case shows the value of appellate counsel
For a family or a school district facing a sports-injury case, Yzaguirre shows that the answer can turn on how a class actually worked: who could enroll, whether students could opt out, and how closely it was tied to a team. Those facts have to be developed at trial, because the Court of Appeal decides duty on the record it receives. The opinion also declines to follow the broader school-hours reasoning of an earlier appellate decision. Duty rulings and instruction choices are reviewed as questions of law, and framing them for appellate review, from the objection at trial through the brief, is work that calls for appellate counsel.
What this post is not. This post is attorney advertising and general information about a court decision. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts and record, and appellate deadlines are short and often jurisdictional — talk to appellate counsel about your case promptly.
Facing a ruling you may need to appeal or challenge by writ? Yisrael Gelb · yisrael@gelblawapc.com · (323) 632-6864