What is the test for determining whether a defendant owes a duty of care to protect a plaintiff from the risk that resulted in the injury?

According to Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696, there are two types of assumption of risk: primary and secondary. Primary assumption of risk occurs when, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury. Primary assumption of risk operates as a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery. Secondary assumption of risk occurs when the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff but the plaintiff knowingly encounters the risk of injury caused by defendant's breach of that duty. Secondary assumption of risk is merged into the comparative fault scheme, and the trier of fact may apportion the loss in relation to the responsibility of the parties. (Id. at pp. 314-315, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.)

Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to protect plaintiff from the risk that resulted in the injury turns on the nature of the activity in which the defendant was engaged and the relationship of the parties to the activity. (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 309, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) The existence and scope of a defendant's duty of care is a legal question for the court to determine. (Id. at p. 313, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696.) Thus, determinations regarding the elements on which the existence of the duty depends also present questions of law. When the injury occurs in a sports setting the court must decide whether the nature of the sport and the defendant's relationship to the sport--as coparticipant, coach, premises owner or spectator--support the legal conclusion of duty.