Does the doctrine of reasonable assumption of risk still apply?

Rejecting the Segoviano court's analysis of reasonable implied assumption of risk, the court in Ordway v. Superior Court, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 243 Cal.Rptr. 536, answered that this defense "remains viable and, where applicable, provides a complete defense to a cause of action for personal injuries." (Id. at p. 107, 243 Cal.Rptr. 536.) We believe that the appellate court in Ordway correctly analyzed the issue when it stated that: "The doctrine of reasonable assumption of risk is only another way of stating that the defendant's duty of care has been reduced in proportion to the hazards attendant to the event. Where no duty of care is [207 Cal.App.3d 1478] owed with respect to a particular mishap, there can be no breach; consequently, as a matter of law, a personal injury plaintiff who has voluntarily--and reasonably--assumed the risk cannot prevail. Or stated another way, the individual who knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk, whether for recreational enjoyment, economic reward or some similar purpose, is deemed to have agreed to reduce the defendant's duty of care." (Id. at p. 104, 243 Cal.Rptr. 536.)