precedent for imposing on hot air balloon operators and their pilots a duty of care to instruct passengers on how to position themselves for landing. In (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 127 (Morgan), Morgan v. Fuji Country USA, Inc. Division One of our appellate district held a golf course owner had a duty to design its course to minimize the risk of being hit by a golf ball, despite the fact such a risk is because doing so was possible altering the nature of inherent to golfing, “‘without [golf].’” (Id. at p. 134.) Our colleagues explained this duty stemmed from the fact the defendant was the golf course If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had sued the owner. who had hit the errant ball, the action would have been barred by the primary golfer assumption of risk doctrine. (Id. at pp. 133-134.) Nearly a decade after the same court held a race organizer had a duty to Morgan, minimize the risks of dehydration and hyponatremia—risks inherent to marathons—by adequate water and electrolyte fluids along the 26-mile course” because “providing steps are reasonable and do not alter the nature of the sport [of marathon “[s]uch running].” (Saffro (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 173, 179.) Faced with a v. Elite Racing, Inc. similar situation in (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1072, this Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd. court held an owner of a motocross track had a duty to provide a system for signaling when riders have fallen in order to minimize the risk of collisions. (Id. at p. 1084.) Track owners could satisfy this duty by employing flaggers,” or some similar device, “caution which would be relatively easy to implement and would not alter the nature of motocross. (Ibid.) As these cases demonstrate, the primary assumption of risk doctrine has never
precedent for imposing on hot air balloon operators and their pilots a duty of care to instruct passengers on how to position themselves for landing. In Morgan v. Fuji Country USA, Inc. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 127 (Morgan), Division One of our appellate district held a golf course owner had a duty to design its course to minimize the risk of being hit by a golf ball, despite the fact such a risk is inherent to golfing, because doing so was possible “‘without altering the nature of [golf].’” (Id. at p. 134.) Our colleagues explained this duty stemmed from the fact the defendant was the golf course owner. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had sued the golfer who had hit the errant ball, the action would have been barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. (Id. at pp. 133-134.) Nearly a decade after Morgan, the same court held a race organizer had a duty to minimize the risks of dehydration and hyponatremia—risks inherent to marathons—by “providing adequate water and electrolyte fluids along the 26-mile course” because “[s]uch steps are reasonable and do not alter the nature of the sport [of marathon running].” (Saffro v. Elite Racing, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 173, 179.) Faced with a similar situation in Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1072, this court held an owner of a motocross track had a duty to provide a system for signaling when riders have fallen in order to minimize the risk of collisions. (Id. at p. 1084.) Track owners could satisfy this duty by employing “caution flaggers,” or some similar device, which would be relatively easy to implement and would not alter the nature of motocross. (Ibid.) As these cases demonstrate, the primary assumption of risk doctrine has never
E063449.DOCX