Pfau v. Kim's Hapkido (August 11, 1999)

* Court: State appellate court

* Defendant: Private martial arts studio

* Plaintiff's Job Class: Police officer

* Trial Court Decision: In favor of defendant

* Appellate Court Decision: In favor of defendant

* Issue Areas: Training injury, firefighter's rule, exceptions to firefighter's rule

Pfau Facts

* Pfau in August 1995 attended department-required martial arts training.

* The training was in gun retention techniques.

* The training was provided by a martial arts studio.

* While demonstrating a technique to defend against a suspect taking an officer's weapon, the instructor injured Pfau's shoulder.

* Pfau sued the martial arts studio.

* The studio won at the trial court on a summary judgment motion.

* The appellate court affirmed the judgment.

Pfau Analysis

* The court concludes that the studio did not owe a duty of care to Pfau because Pfau assumed the risk of injury.

* The court says that Pfau assumed the risk of injury even though Pfau was involved in the activity leading to his injury because of his employment.

* The court extends the firefighter's rule to cover this case. The firefighter's rule states that, even if a citizen negligently starts a fire, the citizen does not own a duty of care to a firefighter injured by the fire.

* The firefighter's rule, says the court, is a form of the assumption of the risk doctrine. The court concludes that the firefighter's rule applies to training for a public safety emergency, as well as the emergency itself. So the studio did not owe Pfau a duty of care, and so Pfau does not have a basis to sue the studio.

* Civil Code section 1714.9 contains an exception to the firefighter's rule. The court decides to reject the literal wording of the section(that is, the court is rewriting the section) to restrict it to emergencies, not to training for emergencies. So section 1714.9 does not help Pfau.