legal news


Register | Forgot Password

McKay v. Self Defense Institute

McKay v. Self Defense Institute
02:25:2007

McKay v


McKay v. Self Defense Institute


Filed 2/21/07  McKay v. Self Defense Institute CA1/1


 


 


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


 


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION ONE







BRUCE McKAY,


            Plaintiff and Appellant,


v.


SELF DEFENSE INSTITUTE et al.,


            Defendants and Respondents.


      A112254


      (Alameda County


      Super. Ct. No. RG04 144253)


            Appellant Bruce McKay injured his knee while participating in a self-defense class conducted by the Self Defense Institute (â€





Description Appellant injured his knee while participating in a self-defense class conducted by the Self Defense Institute ("SDI"). He sued SDI, three related business entities, and David Moeller (the owner of SDI) (respondents) for negligence.
Respondents moved for summary judgment, claiming that they owed no duty of care to appellant because he signed a release prior to participating in the class. They also argued that they did not owe him a duty of care under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk set forth in Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296 (Knight), and that the action was barred by the "firefighter's rule." The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in respondents' favor. This appeal followed. Court affirm.

Rating
5/5 based on 1 vote.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale