The court of appeals stated that exculpatory agreements in recreational sports do not implicate the public interest and are, therefore, not void as against public policy.
Jun
The court of appeals stated that exculpatory agreements in recreational sports do not implicate the public interest and are, therefore, not void as against public policy.
Uninsured motorist arbitration is not an action under Code Civ. Proc., § 22, and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.6, nor is it a special proceeding under Code Civ. Proc., § 23, in the absence of a judicial remedy.
“The standard of care imposed upon school personnel in carrying out this duty to supervise is identical to that required in the performance of their other duties. This uniform standard to which they are held is that degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence, charged with [comparable] duties, would exercise under the same circumstances.” C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 869.)
The assumption of the risk doctrine applies to plaintiffs injured by an inherent risk of a sport, irrespective of whether the specific injury itself was inherent to the sport.
What is inherent is determined by the conduct or condition necessary to engage in the sport.
A § 998 offer must be sufficiently certain, specific, or definite in its terms and conditions. An offer is sufficiently certain only if:
Burdens of Proof
The 998 offeror bears the burden of demonstration its offer was sufficiently certain and unconditional with any ambiguities strictly construed against the offeror.
The 998 offeree bears the burden of demonstrating the offer was not made in good faith.