Hass v. Rhodyco Prods.
Decision Date | 13 August 2018 |
Docket Number | A142418 |
Citation | 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 682,26 Cal.App.5th 11 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | Eden Gonzalez HASS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RHODYCO PRODUCTIONS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Jeffry A. Miller, Lann G. McIntyre, San Diego, Shawn A. Toliver, Helen L. Greenberg, San Francisco.
Counsel for Defendant and Respondent: Law Office of Gerald Clausen, Gerald Clausen, Abramson Smith Waldsmith LLP, Robert J. Waldsmith, Jeffrey R. Smith, San Francisco.
After crossing the finish line at the 2011 Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Half Marathon, Peter Hass(Hass) tragically suffered a cardiac arrest, collapsed, and died.Hass’s wife, Eden Hass, and his two minor children (collectively, the Hass Family) consequently filed this wrongful death action, alleging that numerous race-affiliated individuals and entities—including event organizer David Rhody, individually and dba RhodyCo Productions (RhodyCo)—were negligent in the organization and management of the race, particularly with respect to the provision of emergency medical services.1The trial court initially granted RhodyCo’s summary judgment motion in this matter, concluding that the instant action was barred under theories of primary assumption of the risk and express waiver.However, after the Hass Family filed a motion for new trial, the trial court reversed itself.Specifically, the court found that primary assumption of the risk was inapplicable on these facts and further determined that the Hass Family should have been allowed to amend their complaint to plead gross negligence, conduct falling outside of the scope of the written waiver and release.On appeal, RhodyCo argues that the trial court’s initial grant of summary judgment was correct, even if the issue of gross negligence is considered on its merits.The Hass Family, in contrast, generally champions the court’s new trial order, but argues that the express release in this case was invalid on additional grounds rejected by the trial court and that the court should have concluded on the evidence before it that a triable issue of material fact exists as to RhodyCo’s gross negligence.We agree with the trial court that summary judgment was not warranted in this case based on primary assumption of the risk.However, we believe the trial court erred in requiring amendment of the complaint to plead gross negligence and determine, based on our independent review of the record before us, that a triable issue of material fact exists on this issue.We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part, with instructions to enter a denial of RhodyCo’s summary judgment motion.
The annual Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Half Marathon & 5K Run in Golden Gate Park (Half Marathon) consists of two different events—a 13.1 mile half marathon and a 5 kilometer run.In 2011, the anticipated attendance for the two races was estimated to include 10,000 participants and 600 volunteers.RhodyCo provided event management and production services for the Half Marathon from 2006 through 2011.In order to obtain the necessary temporary street closure permit for the event, RhodyCo was required to submit an emergency medical services plan (EMS Plan) to the City and County of San Francisco(City) for review and approval by the City’s Emergency Medical Services Agency(Agency).
The approved EMS Plan for 2011 stated, as it had in previous years, that the medical personnel at the Half Marathon would be provided by Palmer College of Chiropractic-West (PCCW) and American Medical Response (AMR).More specifically, it asserted that PCCW would " "Other portions of the approved EMS Plan, however, indicated that one M.D., 6+ EMTs, and one automatic external defibrillator (AED) would be located at the finish line.
Having signed a release (Release) in which he agreed, among other things, to "accept the inherent dangers and risks" arising from his participation in the race and to release RhodyCo from "any and all claims" based on injuries he might suffer "at or enroute to and from this event," Hass participated in the Half Marathon on February 6, 2011.Almost immediately after crossing the finish line at 10:05:34 a.m., Hass suffered a sudden cardiac arrest and collapsed.Another runner, Dr. Charles Whitehill, crossed the finish line 13 seconds after Hass and heard him fall.Dr. Whitehill—who had significant experience in providing and overseeing resuscitation efforts for patients—began to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on Hass within 30-60 seconds of arriving at Hass’s side.Dr. Whitehall was involved in CPR efforts for five to eight minutes, after which CPR was continued by another bystander who identified himself as an off-duty paramedic.Approximately 11 minutes after Hass collapsed a third bystander brought the AED from the post-race tent, which was located somewhere between 100 and 200 yards beyond the finish line.When the AED was applied, it showed that Hass had no shockable heart rhythm.CPR efforts were then continued until paramedics from the City’s Fire Department arrived at approximately 10:31 a.m. and took over treatment.Unfortunately, Hass was pronounced dead shortly thereafter at 10:49 a.m. RhodyCo has provided event management and production services for over 25 years, including at least 400 running, walking, and other events involving over 1.5 million participants.Hass’s tragic death was the only fatality ever experienced at a RhodyCo-managed event.
On May 3, 2012, the Hass Family filed this wrongful death action (Complaint), alleging, among other things, that RhodyCo had negligently organized and planned the Half-Marathon; negligently "hired, retained, ... supervised, [and] controlled" the medical team; and negligently "managed, trained, supervised and controlled emergency and medical resources."In particular, the Hass Family highlighted the use of chiropractors rather than medical doctors, the use of chiropractic students rather than EMTs, the lack of ambulance personnel at the finish line, inadequate communication and communication devices, and inadequate AEDs and ambulances.RhodyCo answered, generally denying the Complaint allegations and asserting several affirmative defenses, including primary assumption of the risk and express contractual assumption of the risk and release of liability.
RhodyCo then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Hass Family’s wrongful death action was completely barred based on the two aforementioned affirmative defenses.Specifically, RhodyCo claimed that Hass had agreed to be bound by the Release when he registered for the Half Marathon, which included a waiver of liability and assumption of the risk agreement that was binding on his heirs.In addition, RhodyCo asserted that sudden cardiac arrest is an inherent risk of long-distance running and that it had done nothing to increase this risk.Under these circumstances, RhodyCo opined, the Hass Family’s action was barred under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine.
In opposition to the summary judgment motion, the Hass Family argued with respect to the Release that it was void to the extent it purported to cover emergency medical services, as such services implicate the public interest; that it was not a clear and unambiguous waiver of future liability for a wrongful death claim; and that it was ineffective to exempt RhodyCo from liability for gross negligence.With respect to the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, the Hass Family agreed that cardiac arrest is an inherent risk of long-distance running, but argued that a sponsoring entity is nevertheless obligated to take reasonable steps to minimize inherent risks to the extent it is able to do so without altering the nature of the sport.They further maintained that RhodyCo had increased the risk of death beyond that inherent in the sport by failing to comply with the EMS Plan.
On the issue of negligence, the Hass Family presented evidence indicating that medical emergencies (including cardiac arrests ) are more likely to occur near the finish line of a race because runners tend to push themselves to improve their times, causing an adrenaline rush and an arrhythmia.Moreover, as the City, itself, has recognized: " ‘[C]losing off several major streets at the same time to accommodate a race often causes ... potential interference with emergency services.’ "(San Francisco Transportation Code, § 6.11, subd. (a).)The Hass Family argued that, although RhodyCo’s EMS Plan for the Half Marathon properly identified the finish line as a " ‘key area’ " and indicated numerous resources would be stationed there—including a medical doctor, AED, and "6+" EMTs—the only medical personnel assigned to the finish line were Dr. Rosenberg (a chiropractor) and the Event Coordinator (a chiropractic student), neither of whom were actually at the finish line when Hass collapsed.They further claimed that the AED was in the medical tent located approximately 200 yards away, in the post-race expo area; that no event medical personnel arrived at the...
To continue reading
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Brown v. El Dorado Union High Sch. Dist.
...in a delay in treatment and the exacerbation of Nick's injuries. To support his argument, Nick cites Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 682 ( Hass ) and Arista v. County of Riverside (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1051, 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 437 ( Arista ). Both cases ar......
-
Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Enercon Servs., Inc.
...is a very delicate and undefined power, and ... should be exercised only in cases free from doubt." Hass v. RhodyCo Prods. , 26 Cal. App. 5th 11, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 697 (2018). Contracts may be voided where the public interest is significantly undermined, see Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of ......
-
Summer J. v. U.S. Baseball Fed'n
...Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003-1004, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 103, 75 P.3d 30 ( Kahn ); Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 23, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 682 ; see Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1083, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 ["the legal quest......
-
Kim v. Cnty. of Monterey
...amounting to ordinary negligence, then it follows that a claim for gross negligence likewise fails. ( Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 32, 236 Cal.Rptr.3d 682 ( Hass ).) Therefore, we first examine both of Kim's causes of action under the principles of ordinary negligen......
-
Negligence
...3rd 1220. Similarly, liability is not barred in case of wrongful death based on gross negligence. Hass v. RhodyCo Productions , (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 11. No bar to liability in dangerous road condition case brought by cyclist since condition would pose danger to any and all traveling vehi......