Facts

On Feb. 19, 2006, Plaintiff Clifton W. Albright Jr., a 13-year-old basketball player, competed in a National Junior Basketball League game at the Norwalk High School gymnasium. He participated in a shoot-around warm-up drill and played three full quarters and part of the fourth quarter. During the game, Plaintiff ran after an opposing player to block a lay-up shot. Plaintiff succeeded in blocking the shot, but landed at the base of the gym wall four feet beyond the baseline, catching his shoe between the floor, the wall, and the bottom of a wall mat. Pacific Mat Company installed the mat five days earlier on Feb. 14.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that Pacific Mat Company negligently installed the mat too low on the wall, as the custom and practice in the area was to install the bottom of the mat at least 8-12 inches from the floor.

The plaintiff also asserted that Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District and National Junior Basketball League negligently maintained the gym; that the gym presented a hidden danger, and so were liable in premises liability.

The plaintiff further indicated that Resilite Sports Products Inc. should have included a warning label on the mat, and that the mat was defectively dangerous and thus was strictly liable in products liability.

The plaintiff generally contended that the placement of the bottom of the wall mat at four inches above the gym floor created a dangerous condition that was not inherent in the sport of basketball, and was a hidden trap, not open and obvious, especially to a 13-year-old minor who had never been to that gym before that date.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Pacific Mat Company contended that it simply installed the wall mat where the buyer wanted it, and thus committed no negligent act, since Pacific did not hold itself out as a biomechanics, sports medicine, risk management, engineering, or other specialist that might make an independent determination of danger of injury. Pacific Mat Company also contended that there was no statute, ordinance or regulation requiring the mat to be set at any particular height, that the custom and practice of local high schools was to position a wall mat exactly as this one installed, and that a number of legal doctrines and statutes precluded recovery for this accident, including primary assumption of the risk, open and obvious condition, Civil Code section 1714, and BAJI 3.13.

Defendants Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District and National Junior Basketball League concurred with Pacific's proffered legal doctrines, and noted that there was no evidence that the location of the wall mat presented a hidden danger or unreasonably hazardous condition.

Defendant Resilite Sports Products Inc. concurred with other defendants on the bar to recovery because of legal doctrines, noted that there was no aspect of the manufacture, design or sale of the wall mat that played a role in this accident, and pointed out that there was no case or statute that required a warning label, which would have been impractical and ineffective at best, to be placed anywhere on or near the subject wall mat.

All defendants contended that this accident was a bizarre occurrence, never before seen, and thus was unpredictable.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $250,000 globally. Defendants Pacific Mat Company, Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District and National Junior Basketball League made no offer. Defendant Resilite Sports Products Inc. offered $500 after the tentative ruling issued, and ultimately agreed to pay plaintiff $1,000 in exchange for plaintiff's waiver of right of appeal.

Specials in Evidence

$39,000

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered a broken leg, which necessitated having surgery and the placement of a metal bar and screws in his ankle. He alleged that he suffered extreme pain and discomfort, both from injury itself and from later medical procedures and rehabilitation therapy, prompting time and quality of life lost at school and recreation.

Result

Summary judgment for all defendants.

Other Information

NOTE: According to plaintiff's counsel, Yarber v. Oakland Unified School District (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1516, which has nearly identical facts, is directly applicable to the Gov. Code section 831.7 defense and outlines the underlying elements of assumption of risk.