In Towns v. Davidson (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 461, the plaintiff sued the defendant after he collided with her on a ski run. (Towns, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 465.) In opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the declaration of her expert, Dick Penniman, a member of the National Ski Patrol and a ski instructor. (Id. at pp. 466, 471-472.) In his declaration, Penniman opined that the defendant's behavior was reckless and "outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport of skiing." (Id. at p. 472.) The trial court excluded the declaration in its entirety and granted the motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed. (Towns, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 472.) The Towns court explained, "The nature and risks of downhill skiing are commonly understood, the demarcation of any duty owed is judicially defined, and, most significantly, the facts surrounding the particular incident here are not in dispute. Thus, the trial court was deciding the issue of recklessness as a matter of law. There was little an expert's opinion could have added that would have assisted the trier of fact on any of the issues before it." (Id. at p. 473.) The court also noted Penniman's declaration "added nothing beyond declaring the undisputed facts in his opinion constituted recklessness. In short, he 'was advocating, not testifying.'He reached what in this case was an ultimate conclusion of law, a point on which expert testimony is not allowed.'Courts must be cautious where an expert offers legal conclusions as to ultimate facts in the guise of an expert opinion.'This is particularly true in the context of assumption of risk where the facts are not in dispute. The trial court was well within its discretion to exclude Penniman's declaration." (Towns, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 473.)