Last updated · Reviewed by Ron McMinn, Esq.
Possibly. A California school district can be liable for an employee’s negligence or for a dangerous condition of its property. You generally must first present a government claim, usually within six months of the injury. In one decision, the court applied primary assumption of risk because the class was voluntary.
A new California appellate decision gives parents a clearer picture of when a school district can be held responsible for a sports injury during the school day. In Yzaguirre v. Clovis Unified School District, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the “primary assumption of risk” defense can apply to a PE-type class when a student chose to take it. The opinion was filed September 23, 2026, and certified for publication on October 21, 2026, which means other California courts can now rely on it.
Below we summarize what the court decided, then explain how these cases work statewide and what parents should do if a child is hurt in PE or school sports.
What the Court Decided in Yzaguirre v. Clovis Unified
According to the published opinion (case No. F090476), a 12-year-old seventh grader broke his wrist in December 2022 during free time in a “Basketball PE” class at a Fresno County intermediate school. An adult instructor blocked the student’s shot. The family sued the instructor for negligence and battery and sued the district on a theory that it was responsible for its employee’s conduct.
The court described Basketball PE as optional. Students could take it in place of general PE, needed permission from a counselor and a coach, and the class was reserved for junior varsity and varsity players and students hoping to join those teams. A jury returned a defense verdict, and the trial court denied a new trial.
On appeal, the court affirmed. It held that primary assumption of risk was available as a defense even though the class was part of the school day, because the student’s participation was voluntary. It also held that the jury was properly instructed using CACI No. 471, the instruction for injuries caused by an instructor or coach.
Primary Assumption of Risk, in Plain English
Most people in California owe others a duty of ordinary care. Civil Code section 1714 says everyone is responsible for injuries caused by a lack of ordinary care. Sports are treated differently. In Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, the California Supreme Court held that a participant in an active sport generally has no duty to protect others from risks that are an inherent part of the sport. A participant is liable only for intentionally injuring someone or for conduct so reckless that it is totally outside the range of ordinary activity in the sport.
For coaches and instructors, the leading case is Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990. As the Yzaguirre court explained, a coach has a duty not to increase the risks inherent in learning, practicing or performing in the sport. A coach generally is liable only for intentionally injuring a student or for reckless conduct totally outside the range of ordinary teaching or coaching.
That is a high bar. Ordinary carelessness, such as a misjudged block or a drill that goes wrong, usually is not enough when the doctrine applies.
Mandatory PE Versus a Class Your Child Chose
The key lesson of Yzaguirre is that voluntariness matters. The court contrasted its case with Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 64, which involved a mandatory eighth grade PE class. In Nigel B., the court declined to apply primary assumption of risk.
Putting the two cases together, a rough guide looks like this:
- Required PE class. Courts have been reluctant to say a student assumed the risk of something the student was required to do. Ordinary negligence principles are more likely to apply.
- Elective sports class, team practice or competitive sport. After Yzaguirre, a district is more likely to argue primary assumption of risk, and the family may need to show the coach increased the inherent risk or acted recklessly.
- Injuries outside the sport itself. Unsafe equipment, a dangerous facility or a lack of supervision during unstructured time can raise different issues from the risks of the game.
Every case depends on its facts, including how the class was set up and what the student was actually doing when hurt.
What a Coach or School Still Owes Students
Primary assumption of risk does not shield schools from every claim. A coach or instructor can still be responsible for increasing the risk of injury beyond what is inherent in the sport. The Yzaguirre court also noted that schools have a duty to supervise students, which it tied to Education Code section 44807.
When an employee is liable, the district can be too. Government Code section 815.2 makes a public entity liable for injuries caused by its employees acting within the scope of their employment. That section also provides that the entity is not liable where the employee is immune.
If a hazard on school property caused the injury, such as a broken bleacher or a damaged court surface, Government Code section 835 may apply. That section covers dangerous conditions of public property. The family generally must show the condition created a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that happened, and that the district created it or knew or should have known about it in time to fix it.
Suing a School District Starts With a Government Claim
A family usually cannot simply file a lawsuit against a public school district. The same claim rules apply if a child is hurt on a school bus. Under Government Code section 945.4, a written claim generally must be presented to the district first, and the district must act on it or be deemed to have rejected it.
The six-month deadline
For personal injury, Government Code section 911.2 requires the claim to be presented within six months after the claim accrues, which is usually the date of injury. The district generally has 45 days to act under Government Code section 912.4. If it does not act, the claim is treated as rejected.
After the district responds
Under Government Code section 945.6, if the district sends a written rejection notice, the lawsuit generally must be filed within six months after the notice is delivered or mailed. If no proper notice is given, the time is generally two years from accrual.
If six months have already passed
There may still be options, especially for children. Under Government Code section 911.4, a late-claim application can be filed within a reasonable time, but no later than one year after accrual. The time a person is a minor counts toward that year. Government Code section 911.6 then requires the district to grant the application in several situations, including when the injured person was a minor during the entire six-month claim period. If the district denies the application, Government Code section 946.6 allows a petition to the court within six months after the denial.
These rules are strict and easy to miss. Our government claims page explains the process, and we have covered related issues such as filing a government claim too early, SB 577 and public entity injury claims and the new claim declaration rule under AB 2529.
What Parents Should Document
Good records made early can make a real difference, especially when the question is whether a class was voluntary or whether a coach went beyond the normal risks of the sport.
- How the class was set up. Keep the class schedule, course description, any sign-up or permission forms, and anything showing whether the class was required or chosen.
- What happened. Write down your child’s account as soon as possible, including who was involved, what activity was going on and who was supervising.
- Witnesses. Note the names of classmates, teammates and staff who saw the injury.
- School records. Ask for the incident or injury report, and keep emails and texts with teachers, coaches and administrators.
- Medical care. Keep records, imaging, bills and notes about school days missed and activities your child cannot do.
- The scene and equipment. Take photos of the court, field or equipment if a condition may have played a role.
- Dates. Mark the injury date and the six-month claim deadline on your calendar right away.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a California school district if my child was hurt in PE?
Possibly. A district can be liable for an employee’s negligence or for a dangerous condition of its property. You generally must first present a government claim, usually within six months of the injury.
Does it matter whether the PE class was required?
Yes. In Yzaguirre v. Clovis Unified School District, the court applied primary assumption of risk because the class was voluntary. In Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified School Dist., involving mandatory PE, the court declined to apply it.
When is a coach liable for a student’s sports injury?
Under Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., when the doctrine applies, a coach generally is liable only for intentionally injuring the student or for reckless conduct totally outside the range of ordinary coaching, including increasing the risks inherent in the sport.
What if we missed the six-month claim deadline?
A late-claim application may be possible within one year under Government Code section 911.4. Special rules help minors, and a court petition under section 946.6 may be available if the district denies the application.
Talk to us
If your child was hurt at school, Win Attorneys serves clients across California. We speak Spanish and Vietnamese. Call (562) 296-5380 or reach us through our contact page.
Office: 17291 Irvine Blvd., Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780. Visits are by appointment.
This article is general information for educational purposes. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case details are drawn from the published opinion as of October 26, 2026. No fault is assigned to anyone. Outcomes depend on the facts of each matter. Seek medical care for injuries, and consult a licensed California attorney about your situation.