The defendant bought a Honda 400 EX for off-roading use by his son Matthew, then age 12. In February of 2003, the defendant took Matthew, then 14, to the Glamis sand dunes, to ride the Honda ATV. While out of Wilkins’s view, Matthew drove the Honda up a blind hill at the same time Huff, the plaintiff, was approaching the hill on his ATV from the other side. The Honda flew over the crest of the hill, and while airborne, collided with Huff. Matthew apologized for the accident and said he was “out of control.” Huff sustained serious injuries, and he sued Matthew and Wilkins for negligent driving and negligent entrustment, respectively. The primary assumption of risk doctrine was rejected. “Although a collision between ATVs was an inherent risk of the sport of off-roading, Matthew’s failure to comply with the safety regulations was not an inherent risk, and to any extent the failure increased the risk of a collision, Huff did not assume the increased risk merely by participating in the sport.” See Huff v. Wilkins, 138 Cal.App.4th 732 (Cal. 4th App. Dist. 2006).
Leave a Reply