Personal Injury & Torts
Aug. 2, 2002
Martial Arts Are At Your Own Risk
SACRAMENTO - A woman who was injured in a tae kwon do class cannot sue her instructor for damages under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a state appeal court ruled Wednesday.
In this case, the instructor did nothing to increase the normal dangers of a sport, Justice William R. McGuiness wrote for the unanimous three-justice panel. Rodrigo v. Koryo Martial Arts, A096513.
"An instructor's duty to a student under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is limited to acting in a fashion that does not increase the risks inherent in learning a sport," McGuiness wrote. "Applying that standard to the undisputed facts in the case before us, we find that respondent did nothing to increase the risks associated with learning tae kwon do."
Joining McGuiness in his ruling were Justices Carol A. Corrigan and Stuart R. Pollak.
The plaintiff, Roxane Rodrigo, was injured in a 1999 tae kwon do class at Koryo Martial Arts in San Bruno. Her instructor was Master Ki Bok Kim, "a fourth-degree black belt, certified as a master by the world governing body for tae kwon do," according to the appeal court.
The students were practicing a kick in which they were aiming at a target, a cushioned leather pad held by Kim, the court said. The students were lined up, waiting for a turn to kick the target, when Rodrigo was injured.
Rodrigo claimed she was standing in line, preparing to practice her kick, when she felt "something on her leg," the court wrote. "She believes someone kicked her, but she does not know who. The apparent kick caused a rupture of the Achilles' tendon in appellant's leg."
Representing herself, Rodrigo sued the martial arts school for negligence, claiming poor supervision by Kim caused her injury.
However, the martial arts school, represented by San Francisco lawyers John J. Murray and Anne B. Harrigan, successfully moved for summary judgment. They claimed the school owed no duty of care to Rodrigo under the assumption of risk doctrine as set forth by the state Supreme Court in Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (1992).
Wednesday, the appeal court affirmed, saying there was uncontroverted evidence that "tae kwon do is a martial art, involving strenuous physical activity and interpersonal combat with both kicking and punching."
"It is self-evident that a sport that involves interpersonal combat with both kicking and punching carries not just the inherent risk - but arguably the certainty - that a participant will not only kick and punch other participants but will also be kicked and punched by others," McGuiness wrote. "Likewise, learning how to kick and punch in a class in which other students are also learning the same skills involves the same risks."
"If Master Kim had set up a drill in which students were instructed to practice their kicks while their classmates' backs were turned with knowledge that some of his students habitually kicked in a dangerous manner, ordering participation in that drill might arguably have increased the risks associated with learning tae kwon do," McGuiness wrote.
"Here, however, no evidence was presented establishing that Master Kim instructed his students to do-or not to do-anything that enhanced the risks associated with learning tae kwon do," he wrote. "Accordingly, [Rodrigo's] claim that [Kim] failed to supervise the class does not defeat application of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk."
Hudson Sangree
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com