In Aaris v. Las Virgenes Unified School Dist. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1112, the Court of Appeal applied the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk to modern high school cheerleading, which the Aaris court noted has become a sporting activity that includes acrobatics and gymnastics and, consequently, involves a much greater risk of injury than it did in the past.(Id. at pp. 1114-1115.) The plaintiff in Aaris was a high school cheerleader who sued her school district for a knee injury that she sustained as a base on a stunt group when she and other group members attempted to catch a flyer in a cradle and the flyer fell on her. (Id. at p. 1115.) The Aaris court stated: "Not so very long ago, a row of docile cheerleaders would say, 'rah, rah, rah, sis-boom-bah'--maybe a leg would kick up into the air, perhaps a jump under the cheerleader's own power. This would take the cheerleader a foot or so off the ground. That, however, was yesterday. Today, even appellant recognizes ' . . . the acrobatic gymnastic nature of modern cheerleading.' It is not unusual for modern cheerleaders to perform gymnastic stunts which may catapult a cheerleader many feet into the air. What goes up, must come down. This includes cheerleaders. Whenever gravity is at play with the human body, the risk of injury is inherent. While an appellate court has the power to change the law, we cannot change the law of gravity." (Aaris, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1114-1115.) The Aaris court concluded that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk barred the plaintiff's negligence action against the school district. (Aaris, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115.) The court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk does not apply to a negligence action against an instructor or coach, as opposed to a coparticipant in a sporting activity, reasoning that "'an instructor is not an insurer of the student's safety.'" (Id. at p. 1117.) The Aaris court concluded that the action was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk because there was no evidence that the plaintiff's coach increased the risk of harm inherent in the subject gymnastic stunt or took the team beyond its level of experience and capability. (Id. at p. 1118.) The plaintiff in Aaris contended that the coach owed a greater duty of care because some of the cheerleaders had not mastered the cradle stunt. (Aaris, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 1119.) The Aaris court concluded that this contention lacked merit because it "assumed that more supervision would have reduced the risk of harm." (Ibid.) The court reiterated that the plaintiff's coach was "not an insurer of her physical safety," and stated, "'Absent evidence of recklessness, or other risk-increasing conduct, liability should not be imposed simply because an instructor asked the student to take action beyond what, with hindsight, is found to have been the student's abilities. To hold otherwise would discourage instructors from requiring students to stretch, and thus to learn, and would have a generally deleterious effect on the sport as a whole.'" (Ibid.)