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

"[In] the first class of cases, however, [the high court] held that the plaintiff's claim should be barred entirely because of a legal determination that the defendant did not owe a duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm involved in the claim. [Citation.] [The high court] observed that such cases frequently arise in the context of active sports." (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 1003-1004.)

The question when determining whether to apply primary assumption of the risk "is whether, given the activity in question and the relationship of the defendant to the activity and to the plaintiff, the imposition of liability would have a chilling effect on the conduct required by the nature of the activity." (Bushnell v. Japanese-American

Page 11