Damages for Recreational Injuries Barred : Courts: Weekend athletes who knowingly assume the risks of touch football, water skiing and other sports may not sue when hurt during ordinary conduct, state high court rules.

In a ruling affecting countless weekend athletes, the state Supreme Court on Monday barred damage awards to people negligently injured by co-participants in touch football, water skiing and other recreational sports.

The court held that those who knowingly assume the risks of such pursuits can sue only for intentional harm or reckless conduct “totally outside” the sport’s ordinary activity. Those hurt by only accidental conduct--such as a carelessly thrown ball--cannot sue in California, the justices said.

By a 6-1 vote, the court upheld an appeal court ruling barring a lawsuit by a woman whose little finger was smashed in an impromptu, sandlot touch football game during halftime of the 1987 Super Bowl.

“Vigorous participation in such sporting events likely would be chilled if legal liability were to be imposed on a participant on the basis of his or her ordinary careless conduct,” Justice Ronald M. George wrote in the court’s lead opinion.

In a separate companion case, the justices voted 4 to 3 to uphold the dismissal of a suit brought against a boat operator towing a water skier injured by an overhanging tree branch while skiing barefoot and backward.

The decisions are likely to have broad effect, lawyers said. Ten cases raising similar issues--involving softball players, horseback riders and others involved in recreational pursuits--were pending before the state high court.

While the rulings dealt with recreation injuries, attorneys said the legal principles limiting liability because of assumed risk might be applicable to cases involving injured workers and others.

Dennis W. Daley of Solana Beach, attorney for the touch football player who was sued, said Monday’s decisions would broaden protection for sports enthusiasts and deter meritless lawsuits.

“A contrary ruling would have been unworkable,” Daley said. “It might have created a situation where participants would have to exchange mass written legal waivers before a game.”

Steven H. Wilhelm, a San Diego attorney for the injured player, expressed disappointment and predicted that defense lawyers would try to apply the ruling to non-sports cases. Wilhelm expressed concern that the ruling “will squelch a lot of meritorious cases” brought by injured people.

The issue before the court slowly evolved after a key change in California’s civil liability law 17 years ago. Before then, under an “all or nothing” concept of contributory negligence, people injured even partly through their own fault could not sue others for their negligence.

But in a landmark decision in 1975, the state high court adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence, holding that damages must be apportioned to the degree of fault of all involved. Thus, a plaintiff who sought $1 million in damages, but was found 50% at fault, could still collect $500,000.

In the first case decided Monday, Kendra Knight brought suit against Michael Jewett, claiming he knocked her to the ground and stepped on her hand during a touch football game in Vista. The woman later lost the little finger injured in the collision. Jewett denied intentionally hurting Knight.

Jewett won a ruling upholding dismissal of the case from a state Court of Appeal on grounds that Knight had by implication assumed the risk of injury by participating in the game. The high court majority, while split on its reasoning, agreed Monday that the dismissal should be upheld.

In the second case before the court, Larry C. Ford was seriously injured when he was struck by a branch while water skiing backward in the Sacramento River Delta in 1983. Ford sued the pilot of the towboat, but the suit was dismissed. The high court ruled Monday that the dismissal was proper.