Originally Posted by woodrow1029
My firm only pays for California cases in Lexis, so I'm sure there are more out there. The first one I cited isn't really the same fact pattern, but I'm surprised that the summary judgment was reversed.
If the match was over, the assumption of risk should have ended. This strikes me as the same analysis in Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979), in which a football player punches another in the back of the head fracturing his neck, a violation of the rules, the plaintiff did not assume he risk. In contrast, the OPs hypo about pulling a Lendl and driving a ball hard at an opponent at the net seems to be the exact risk assumed by playing tennis (that a valid return strikes a player).