assumption of risk is merely another way of saying no duty of care is “‘Primary owed as to risks inherent in a given sport or activity. The overriding consideration in the application of this principle is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the sport and thereby alter its fundamental nature.’” (Jimenez v. Roseville (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) the doctrine is often City School Dist. “Although applied as between sports coparticipants, it defines the duty owed as between persons engaged in any activity involving inherent risks.” (Ibid.) The doctrine applies to any activity for enjoyment or thrill . . . [that] involves a challenge containing a “done potential risk of injury.” (Record (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 482; see v. Reason Beninati (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650, 658 [by attending Burning Man v. Black Rock City, LLC festival plaintiff assumed risk of being burned during ritual burning of eponymous effigy].) The test is whether the activity an inherent risk of injury to voluntary “‘involv[es] participants . . . where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.’” (Nalwa, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1156.) As we concluded above supra, in the section on common carriers, a balloon’s limited steerability creates risks of mid-air collisions and crash landings. Moreover, those risks cannot be mitigated except by adding power and steering, which would fundamentally alter the free-floating nature of a balloon, turning it into a dirigible. excitement of [ballooning] is that you never “[T]he know exactly where you’re going to land . . . It’s taking something that is unsteerable and trying to steer it. That’s the challenge.” (Holt, 83 On a Wind and a Prayer, supra, A.B.A.J. at pp. 94-95; cf. 55 Cal.4th at pp. 1157-1158 [refusing to impose Nalwa, supra,
“‘Primary assumption of risk is merely another way of saying no duty of care is owed as to risks inherent in a given sport or activity. The overriding consideration in the application of this principle is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the sport and thereby alter its fundamental nature.’” (Jimenez v. Roseville City School Dist. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) “Although the doctrine is often applied as between sports coparticipants, it defines the duty owed as between persons engaged in any activity involving inherent risks.” (Ibid.) The doctrine applies to any activity “done for enjoyment or thrill . . . [that] involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury.” (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 482; see Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 650, 658 [by attending Burning Man festival plaintiff assumed risk of being burned during ritual burning of eponymous effigy].) The test is whether the activity “‘involv[es] an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants . . . where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.’” (Nalwa, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1156.) As we concluded above in the section on common carriers, a balloon’s limited steerability creates risks of mid-air collisions and crash landings. Moreover, those risks cannot be mitigated except by adding power and steering, which would fundamentally alter the free-floating nature of a balloon, turning it into a dirigible. “[T]he excitement of [ballooning] is that you never know exactly where you’re going to land . . . It’s taking something that is unsteerable and trying to steer it. That’s the challenge.” (Holt, On a Wind and a Prayer, supra, 83 A.B.A.J. at pp. 94-95; cf. Nalwa, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 1157-1158 [refusing to impose
E063449.DOCX