4th 296 (1992), was a case decided by the California Supreme Court, ruling that the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California did not eliminate the defense of assumption of risk in an action for negligence.

[1] The plaintiff sued for personal injuries after the defendant stepped on her hand during a touch football game.

The court held that secondary assumption of risk had been merged into the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California but that primary assumption of risk could still serve as a defense to negligence.

The court determined that in a touch football game, the only duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is to not be reckless and wanton.

Because the plaintiff was injured in the normal course of the touch football game, the injury fell under primary assumption of risk, and she was barred from recovery.