As both a California lawyer and a Kajukenbo school owner, I found the case interesting.
First let me say that what is contained in this post is not legal advice (my disclaimer here, folks). It is only my observations regarding the case and what I also have read from other cases.
The first part of the case had to do with PROCEDURE. A deadline was missed regarding disclosing an expert. If that changed the result of the case for this plaintiff, well, he most likely is going to sue his lawyer next for legal malpractice.
The second part of the case had to do with the MERITS. That is to say, the law in that jurisdiction regarding contact sports negligence. Every jurisdiction applies its own laws. Some jurisdictions are the same as other jurisdictions. California applies the "primary assumption of the risk" standard. Basically, the standard is: You know you are engaging in a contact sport -- and you are assuming the risk of the type of injury that may arise from that type of contact sport. Courts have utilized this standard because to not do so would "chill" participation and coaching in the activity to the extent that the activity could not realistically be undertaken and enjoyed in the manner in which it was intended.
Our school release of liability incorporates this principle. Most insurance companies that I have recently researched require a similar type of release from participants.
For me, the real reason to carry insurance is the legal defense you receive from the insurer if by some chance you are sued. We have never had a claim against our insurance for injuries in the 16 plus years we have had schools. We are a "hands-on" school. Not a "no-touch" dojo. That's one of the reasons why people enroll here. If they want no-touch -- well, I know there are other schools that offer that, and I have heard parents complain later in the game, as it were, about when are their kids going to learn how to fight? And lament about how all they do is forms and kick air. Alas for them, I guess. Maybe they should have done more research before investing their time and money at that kind of school.
To me, this case supports our Kajukenbo philosophy that we can train as we normally have and do not need to change our standards to a no-touch school.