In the case of Rostai v. Neste Enterprises, 138 Cal. App. 4th 326 (2006), a client alleged that he suffered a heart attack in his first training workout because of the negligence of the personal trainer in failing to investigate the cardiac risk factors of the client. The appellate court stated that the trainer’s function is to challenge a participant, and “inherent in that process is the risk that the trainer will not accurately assess the participant’s ability and the participant will be injured as a result.” The court, therefore, held that the client had assumed the risk of this erroneous advice and assessment.

Question

1. Compare the rationale in this case to the one used by the court in the Schweichler case that you read earlier in the chapter.

2. What are the consequences of using the “reckless disregard” standard in cases involving a teacher, coach, or personal trainer?

3. Asa matter of policy, discuss whether it makes sense to essentially “immunize” a coach, teacher, or personal trainer from the consequences of their failure to act as a reasonably prudent professional.