Is assumption of risk an absolute defense in a tree trimming case?

Under the analysis adopted in the "plurality" decision in Jewett, assumption of the risk is an absolute defense only when public policy dictates the class of which a defendant is a member should owe no duty of care to the class of which a plaintiff is a member. According to this analysis, the inquiry does not begin with the question whether the plaintiff assumed the risk, in this instance the question whether this tree trimmer subjectively comprehended the precise risk of electrified branches and reasonably or unreasonably confronted that risk. Rather the inquiry begins--and ends--with a [16 Cal.App.4th 1438] traditional full scale duty analysis, such as was fully developed in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561.