857, 866, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 515 (Cal.Ct.App.2005)). If, on the other hand, “the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff proceeds to encounter a known risk imposed by the defendant’s breach of duty,” the doctrine of secondary assumption of the risk applies, which is analyzed under comparative fault principles. Knight, 3 Cal.4th at 315, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 834 P.2d 696. In such a case, “the trier of fact, in apportioning the loss resulting from the injury, may consider the relative responsibility of the parties.” Id. Here, Kalter was engaged in the activity of hiking on uneven terrain amongst ancient ruins. Inherent in this activity is the risk that one will fall and become injured. (See Andia, 2007 WL 4258634, at *5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88247, at *15) (<HOLDING>). The Itinerary Kalter received pri- or to the
holding that predictions of that character are at best educated guesses and that the debtors assessment of risk is exactly the kind of business decision that the business judgment rule respects holding that falling is always a risk when engaging in any kind of strenuous hike on steep and uneven terrain holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk holding that the risk of slipping and falling on ice is not sufficiently similar to those special aspects discussed in lugo to constitute a uniquely high likelihood or severity of harm and remove the condition from the open and obvious danger doctrine holding the better rule  on the question of the divisibility of a contract of insurance for a gross premium on several items of property separately valued  is that it depends upon the nature and entirety of the risk thus where the property is so situated that the risk of one item affects the risk on the other the contract is entire and not divisible