In Luna v. Vela (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 102, the plaintiff brought suit after he was injured playing volleyball on a court set up by his neighbor in his neighbor's front yard. The 13-year-old plaintiff fractured his elbow after he ran after a ball that was hit into the street and tripped over a tie-line the defendant had stretched across the sidewalk. (Id. at p. 105.) The trial court granted summary judgment based on assumption of the risk, but, as occurred here, the court of appeal reversed because the defendant had failed to meet his burden to show the way in which he set up the volleyball court did not increase the inherent risks. (Luna, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 112.) The appellate court then looked to Shin to conclude that the question of whether the manner in which the defendant set up the court breached his limited duty not to increase the risk was a question for the jury: "Although the nature of the limited duties differs, the question whether a defendant golfer's conduct violated a sports participant's limited duty of care to a coparticipant is not fundamentally different from the question whether a defendant homeowner who set up an informal recreational volleyball court violated his limited duty of care to the game's participants." (Id. at p. 114.) "In either case, on a sufficient record summary judgment may be proper. . In both cases, however, if triable issues of material fact exist on the question of breach of that limited duty, the matter should be resolved by the trier of fact, not the court as a matter of law." (Ibid.)