California School Sports Injuries: When Does Assumption of Risk Apply?

In Yzaguirre v. Clovis Unified School District, the Fifth District Court of Appeal filed its opinion on September 23, 2026, and certified it for publication on October 21, 2026.¹ Publication made the opinion citable precedent; it did not create a new trial verdict.

According to the opinion, a 12-year-old student broke his wrist when an adult instructor blocked his basketball shot. Accounts of the contact differed.¹ The student had voluntarily enrolled in a specialized basketball physical-education class that required approval and was intended for team members or aspiring players. Although the class satisfied a PE requirement, that particular class was optional.¹

The jury returned defense verdicts. The Court of Appeal affirmed and upheld the challenged jury instructions.¹

The court distinguished this specialized, approval-based class from mandatory general PE, where a student’s participation is not a matter of choice.¹ That distinction does not mean every elective sports class automatically falls within the doctrine. Courts look at the nature of the activity, how participation arose, and the relationship between the student and the defendant.

Primary assumption of risk concerns whether a defendant owed a legal duty regarding particular risks inherent in an activity, and the scope of that duty.² It is not simply a finding that the injured student was careless, and it does not depend on a signed waiver.

For the instructional conduct at issue in Yzaguirre, the court applied Kahn’s standard requiring intentional injury or reckless conduct totally outside the ordinary range of teaching or coaching the sport.¹² Intentionally making contact, as in blocking a shot, is different from intending to cause injury. This is not a universal standard for every coach-related injury: claims involving unsafe equipment, dangerous playing conditions, or other distinct conduct require separate duty analysis.

Choosing to play does not authorize every form of dangerous conduct. In Kahn, the California Supreme Court reversed a defense summary judgment because the evidence raised a factual question about whether the coaching was reckless.² The Court did not decide that the defendants were ultimately liable.

Yzaguirre did not create blanket immunity for schools or decide every possible negligent-supervision claim. The appeal concerned the instructor’s conduct and the district’s asserted vicarious liability; a separate negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim had been dismissed.¹

Labeling a claim “negligent supervision” does not by itself avoid assumption of risk. Courts examine the actual conduct, the risk involved, and the relationship between the parties.

After a school sports injury, families may wish to preserve incident reports, witness names and contact information, any available video, medical records, and course-enrollment or class-approval materials. These records can help evaluate what happened and which rules may apply; they do not guarantee any particular outcome.

To discuss a school-related injury, contact Mahrouyan Law, P.C., or read more about our personal injury practice.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Liability depends on the facts and applicable law. Contacting Mahrouyan Law, P.C. does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.