Monday, September 28, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Student Assumed Risk of School-Hours Basketball Injuries
Decision Saying Affirmative Defense Inapplicable Where Pupil Was in Mandatory PE Class Is Found Inapplicable
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Fifth District Court of Appeal has rejected the contention of a student that a school district was not immune from liability in connection with injuries he received when a teacher blocked him when he was attempting to shoot a basket, holding that the defense of primary assumption of the risk applies even though the incident took place during school hours and in the course of a class, rather than in an extracurricular game.
Justice Sonny S. Sandhu authored the unpublished opinion, filed Wednesday, saying that although one period a day of physical education (“PE”) was mandatory, plaintiff Joseph Yzaguirre voluntarily subjected himself to any dangers inherent in basketball by signing up for a class exclusively devoted to that sport.
The boy was age 12 at the time he incurred his injuries on Dec. 23, 2022. He sued the Clovis Unified School District in Fresno County and the teacher, Phil King, who, according to his account, delivered a “karate chop.” The jury found no battery had occurred and the plaintiff’s contrary allegation was not in issue on appeal.
Insisting that the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk was erroneously applied, the youth pointed in hos opening brief on appeal to the 2023 Court of Appeal decision by this district’s Div. Five in Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School District. Justice Dorothy Kim said in that opinion:
“Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff’s participation in the physical education class was not voluntary on his part, but rather was required by the middle school’s curriculum. We decline to extend the application of the doctrine to a sports activity that is, as here, part of a mandatory physical education class. Indeed, it is the compulsory nature of education that imposes, in part, a duty upon school districts to take reasonable steps to protect their students.”
In his opening brief, Joseph Yzaguirre cited Education Code §48200 which provides that “[e]ach person between the ages of 6 and 18 years not exempted…is subject to compulsory full-time education.”
Presence of Duty
He argued:
“Because this injury occurred during school hours, on school property, and as part of the mandatory education requirements, the school had a duty to protect its students, including Joseph Yzaguirre. Primary assumption of risk applies when the defendant does not have a duty to plaintiff….Here, respondents’ duty is prescribed under the Education Code and assumption of risk should not have been applied. Appellant respectfully submits that the trial court improperly applied assumption of risk under the Nigel B. case….”
Sandhu said that the decision in Nigel B. was “based less on the curricular context in which the injury occurred and more on the fact of involuntary participation,” and wrote:
“The injury in this case was sustained during a special basketball class into which plaintiff voluntarily enrolled after taking affirmative steps to be approved. An ‘assumption’ of risk requires volitional behavior, and voluntariness was present to a much greater degree than in any cases upon which plaintiff relies. The harm he suffered resulted from risks inherent in the game of basketball.”
Consequences of Liability
He also wrote:
“The bright-line test proposed by plaintiff, based on the technically curricular nature of an activity regardless of its connection to an extracurricular program and any considerations of voluntariness, would unduly emphasize form over substance….Nor is it required by any binding precedent….The result urged by plaintiff would also discourage school districts from offering sport-specific courses like the Basketball PE class in this case.”
The jurist continued:
“If school districts and coaches were to face heightened liability exposure for team practices conducted during school hours, but less exposure for the exact same activities taking place outside of those hours, the daytime programs would either be discontinued or diluted. Coaches would be disincentivized from teaching the classes for fear of personal liability or would refrain from various forms of demonstrative and participatory instruction. Such dulling effects must be taken into consideration when determining whether the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies in a given case.”
The case is Yzaguirre v. Clovis Unified School District, F090476.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company