Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Re: surfing injury

Mostly likely you are assuming the risk of bumping into others while surfing. Assumption of the risk, means you get nothing. I think there is less capability to control yourself and surfboards, compared to skiing. I think you would lose your case.

Re: surfing injury

People can and do sue over skiing accidents of this nature, and I can't think of a reason \why you wouldn't be able to sue lawyer who hit you if he was negligent. He probably has homeowners' insurance that will cover the accident. Contact a local personal injury lawyer right away and watch out for legal time limits.

Re: surfing injury

You assumed the risks of surfing. Yes, if you could prove it was entirely his 'fault' you could try to claim your bills. The likelihood of that is not high. Feel free though.

Re: surfing injury

A driver who rear-ends another is not always at fault, and neither is a surfer who does so.

Unless you think the other surfer hit you on purpose, your claim would be based upon negligence. You would have to show that he owed you a duty to surf safely, that he breached that duty, and that his breach caused your injuries. Even if you can do this, your claim still might be barred.

I'm not sure that you can show the other surfer had such a duty. More importantly, the fact that he hit you does not mean he breached whatever duty he may have had. If his duty was to exercise due care and if he hit you despite being careful, then there was no breach.

It is also possible that you breached a duty toward the other surfer. I don't know whether he was injured, but if he was he might have a claim against you. Even if he wasn't hurt, he still would not be responsible for your injuries if you were the only one who was negligent.

Another possibility, of course, is that neither of you was negligent -- in other words, that this was just an accident. Here again, you would be unable to recover from the other surfer.

The final possibility is that you were both negligent. If that is the case, he would be responsible for whatever percentage of the fault was his while you would be responsible for the percentage that was yours. Your respective percentages would be determined by a judge, jury or arbitrator.

As Mr. Marman notes, your claim may also be barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. There are certain activities which we all know (or should know) involve certain risks. When we engage in those activities, we assume those risks. The classic example is the spectator who is hit by a baseball or a golf ball. Spectators assume the risk of being hit when they attend a game, and surfers assume a certain amount of risk when they get into the water. I don't know enough about surfing to know whether what happened to you is within the risks surfing normally entails, but my guess is that it is.

Re: surfing injury

I hope it wasn't amyone I know. That is not an easy determination. Wheter or not the assumption of risk doctrine would apply is a question. If it is under $ 7.5K you may as well just take it to small claims court and let the judge figure it out.

Re: surfing injury

In California the courts have applied the doctrine of assumption of the risk in most cases where injuries occur to participants in amateur sports activities. The California Supreme Court has even spoken on this issue, in the case of Knight v. Jewett, which involved a young woman injured in a game of touch football, when a male participant knocked her down. The Court held that you have to expect some bumps and bruises--or worse-- when you engage in rough and tumble sports activities. In the heat of competition, weekend warriors can get careless and over-exuberant. You assume the risk that other participants may act negligently, so there is no duty of care as there is in the activity of driving a car on the streets and highways. The Court held that in order to establish liability in sports activities, the plaintiff must prove intentional effort to cause harm, or at least grossly reckless conduct that goes beyond the ordinary rough and tumble of the sport.

I am not a surfer, but my children are, and I have seen lots of surfing off of Southern California's crowded beaches. Very few amateur surfers seem in control of their boards, and no one can control the waves. It seems to me that, unless you can prove that the other surfer intentionally ran into you, or repeatedly surfed too close to you to be safe, after being warned not to, it would be very difficult to obtain damages from him in a California court, in my opinion.

There are always exceptions to legal doctrines, of course. A person at a baseball game usually assumes the risk that a ball may fly into the stands, and most pro ballparks make announcements to warn of this possibility. But one patron won an award of damages against a ballclub, when she was distracted from the action on the field by a paid team mascot cavorting in the stands, and was hit by a ball coming off the field.

Go figure.

Re: surfing injury (Pines Response)

Generally, this would be treated as a homeowner's claim, assuming 2 things, the lawyer was covered under a homeowner's or rental policy and that "surfing" injuries were not excluded from the lawyer's policy.

As to who's at fault, depends. The fact that you were hit from behind may be similar, but is different from a car accident. Did you see each other? Who was too close, you or him?

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Mike, Senior Attorney www.SeriousAccidents.com

Re: surfing injury

I agree with the well written response provided by attorney Stephen Petix. I would add that a recent CA Supreme Court decision in Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482(a golf injury case) reinforced the rule that while an injured party involved in a sporting activity is generally barred by the assumption of the risk doctrine for the negligent conduct of the party at fault, the victim is not so barred from recovery of compensation for the "grossly" negligent (aka reckless) or intentional conduct of the person causing the injury. Additionally, the California Small Claims Court is known as a "court of equity" meaning that the hearing officer can disregard the law and instead do equity between the parties. But no way to tell in advance.