Injuries on the Golf course

[lightrider]

Can people really claim injury suits from either being hit on the golf course or slipping and falling on something?

[BJL]

Can people really claim injury suits from either being hit on the golf course or slipping and falling on something?

3155[/snapback]

 

When playing on a golf course, you assume the risk that you may be struck by a golf ball. BUT, the course does have a duty to protect you from a known risk or a risk that should have been known. For example, if the course has a tee box 10 feet from a neighboring green, and 10 people have been hit in the last month by errant approach shots into that green, then the course should be held to have a duty to protect against this known hazard.

 

Similarly, you will often see signs on courses warning against wild animals (rattlesnakes, alligators, etc.). They have a duty to warn you against risks they know about.

 

If they fail to maintain a cart path, and you slip or fall on loose rubble, you would have a claim. If the course's sprinkler system malfunctioned and shot a jet of water into your eyeball blinding you, then you would have a good claim. You get the idea.

 

Golf courses have insurance for all these risks. So, if you are harmed, make a claim. If they resist, get a good lawyer in your jurisdiction to make a claim.

 

BJL

[arkstorm]

Can people really claim injury suits from either being hit on the golf course or slipping and falling on something?

3155[/snapback]

 

When playing on a golf course, you assume the risk that you may be struck by a golf ball...

 

...Well, not necessarily.

 

It really depends on the state you're in because the various states have adopted differing interpretations of the doctrine of assumption of the risk.

 

For instance, in Illinois, the law regarding assumption of the risk in golf is as follows:

 

"[...]Implied assumption of risk is inapplicable [] because golf is simply not the type of game in which participants are inherently, inevitably or customarily struck by the ball." Zurla v. Hydel, 289 Ill.App.3d 215, 221 (1997). " A golf course is not usually considered a dangerous place, nor the playing of golf a hazardous undertaking. It is a matter of common knowledge that players are expected not to drive their balls without giving warning when within hitting distance of persons in the field of play, and that countless persons traverse golf courses the world over in reliance on that very general expectation." Zurla, 289 Ill.App.3d at 222.

 

However, the courts of the state of New York, for example, take a different position...

 

"On a golf course, a golfer generally has a duty of reasonable care to avoid injury to others. As a result, a golfer hitting his shot has a duty to timely yell "fore" so as to give warning to those persons in the "foreseeable ambit of danger". This duty, however, does not extend to someone not in the line of play (though there is not a mathmatical equation to determine whether one is in the line of play) or who is on a contiguous hole or fairway." See Generally: Jenks v. McGranaghan, 30 N.Y.2d 475, 479, 334 N.Y.S.2d 641, 643 (1972); Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347 (1970). Additionally, "a golfer does not exculpate careless or reckless conduct simply by yelling "fore." See, Neumann v. Shlansky, 58 Misc.2d 128, 294 N.Y.S.2d 628 (Co. Ct. Westchester Co 1968)

 

Now, I realize that both these examples address liability as between the plaintiff and the golfer defendant, not the golf course defendant. However, the rules espoused respectively regarding an assumption of the risk defense are just as applicable to either.

 

Thus, in Illinois, assumption of the risk is never a viable defense to hitting someone with a golfball, while in New York it may be (e.g. so long as the defendant did not hit into the group infront of her).

 

The point is that liability will truly be dependant on the laws of the jurisdiction. Add the fact that a defendant may assert a contributory or comparative negligence defense (in states that respectively recoginze contrib. or compar. neg.) and now I've managed to really muddy up the water.

 

But generally speaking, the golf course (as an entity, or the owners thereof) is least likely to be liable. The slice-o-matic golfer who's shot crossed three fairways to hit you in the crotch ("fore? should of yelled two") is your best bet to bankroll the ice pack.

 

Regards,

[BJL]

Can people really claim injury suits from either being hit on the golf course or slipping and falling on something?

3155[/snapback]

 

When playing on a golf course, you assume the risk that you may be struck by a golf ball...

 

...Well, not necessarily.

 

It really depends on the state you're in because the various states have adopted differing interpretations of the doctrine of assumption of the risk.

 

For instance, in Illinois, the law regarding assumption of the risk in golf is as follows:

 

"[...]Implied assumption of risk is inapplicable [] because golf is simply not the type of game in which participants are inherently, inevitably or customarily struck by the ball." Zurla v. Hydel, 289 Ill.App.3d 215, 221 (1997). " A golf course is not usually considered a dangerous place, nor the playing of golf a hazardous undertaking. It is a matter of common knowledge that players are expected not to drive their balls without giving warning when within hitting distance of persons in the field of play, and that countless persons traverse golf courses the world over in reliance on that very general expectation." Zurla, 289 Ill.App.3d at 222.

 

However, the courts of the state of New York, for example, take a different position...

 

"On a golf course, a golfer generally has a duty of reasonable care to avoid injury to others. As a result, a golfer hitting his shot has a duty to timely yell "fore" so as to give warning to those persons in the "foreseeable ambit of danger". This duty, however, does not extend to someone not in the line of play (though there is not a mathmatical equation to determine whether one is in the line of play) or who is on a contiguous hole or fairway." See Generally: Jenks v. McGranaghan, 30 N.Y.2d 475, 479, 334 N.Y.S.2d 641, 643 (1972); Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347 (1970). Additionally, "a golfer does not exculpate careless or reckless conduct simply by yelling "fore." See, Neumann v. Shlansky, 58 Misc.2d 128, 294 N.Y.S.2d 628 (Co. Ct. Westchester Co 1968)

 

Now, I realize that both these examples address liability as between the plaintiff and the golfer defendant, not the golf course defendant. However, the rules espoused respectively regarding an assumption of the risk defense are just as applicable to either.

 

Thus, in Illinois, assumption of the risk is never a viable defense to hitting someone with a golfball, while in New York it may be (e.g. so long as the defendant did not hit into the group infront of her).

 

The point is that liability will truly be dependant on the laws of the jurisdiction. Add the fact that a defendant may assert a contributory or comparative negligence defense (in states that respectively recoginze contrib. or compar. neg.) and now I've managed to really muddy up the water.

 

But generally speaking, the golf course (as an entity, or the owners thereof) is least likely to be liable. The slice-o-matic golfer who's shot crossed three fairways to hit you in the crotch ("fore? should of yelled two") is your best bet to bankroll the ice pack.

 

Regards,

 

You must have a lot of time on your hands.... :lol:

 

Get back to billing!

 

BJL

[Long Shot]

Arkstorm,

great reply, I am in NY and for some reason many golfers here feel that if a group is playing slow the way to warn them is to hit into the group. One day a group I was in was playing a a very slow day (we were on the Black course at Bethpage) and the group behind us hit into us Three times when we were in plain sight. After the second we said something to them. The third tme they did it they hit a person in my group in the shoulder on the fly, it left a mark and stung, but no real permanent injury that one could sek damage on. Thoughj had it been a few inches to the left or right he may of coaught it on the fly in the head.

 

My question is that is their a criminal eliment to repeatedly hitting into a group on purpose and hitting someone and in Ny had they hit the guy in the head causing serious injury would the assumed risk defense be thrown out because it was a purposful action.

[arkstorm]

My question is that is their a criminal eliment to repeatedly hitting into a group on purpose and hitting someone and in Ny had they hit the guy in the head causing serious injury would the assumed risk defense be thrown out because it was a purposful action.

 

Two questions really:

 

1) Is the assumption of the risk defense available?; and

 

2) Is there criminal liability?

 

Interestingly enough, the answer to both involves carelesness and/or recklesness...

 

The case law in NY suggests that an assumption of the risk defense is not available to exculpate careless or reckless behavior.

 

To give you an idea of what is careless and what is reckless, in certain contexts, careless is defined as the undertaking of an unjustifiable risk, whereas reckless is acting in a way that the (negative) result is more likely than not to occur.

 

In terms of the scenario you brought forth, hitting into the group of golfers ahead of you is almost certain to be found to unjustifiably increase the risk of bodily harm to a player that can potentially be hit. For carelesness to be found your partner need not have even been hit. (This is important in the context of criminal liability.) However, since he was hit, the minimum requirement of carelesness is met, thus assumption of the risk defense is out.

 

One more important thing of note: Just because your buddy wasn't seriously injured does not necessarily preclude him from suing. On an intentional tort theory of battery (as opposed to a negligence theory) the plaintiff need not prove damages (although his recovery may then only be for a nominal amount).

 

The point you raised regarding criminal liability is well founded as well. The offending golfer could be guilty of three crimes: (a) battery; (b) assault; and © conspiracy. Battery is an offensive touching. The touching need not be direct as in the case of thrown (or golfed) objects. The requirement is that the defendant intentionally or recklessly caused the offensive touching to occur. Assault is placing someone in fear or aprehension of an imminent or impending battery.

 

Thus, when the putz hit his ball into your group and hit your buddy in the shoulder, that constituted an offensive touching and a battery. The guy can't claim a lack of intent as a defense because merely acting recklessly, that is in such a way that the result is likely to occur, is all that is required from an intent persepctive.

 

However, he can also be charged with assault because the other two balls he hit into you may have placed you in apprehension of being hit.

 

And if you want to get hyper technical, his buddies and he can be charged with conspiracy to commit battery and assault if they agreed prior to the act to commit it or to encourage it or if they acted in a way as to help plan it. (One is guilty of conspiracy if they knowingly and intentionally agree to commit a crime and take some overt act in furtherance thereof.)

 

Anyway, that is that.

 

Now, I want to play Bethpage too. I'm digging up my camping gear and getting ready to sleep out in the car.

[Long Shot]

Thanks for the reply it was quite enlightening. For some reason many people feel the need to hit up into a group rather than take the appropriate steps when a group is playing slow.

 

Good luck with Bethpage, if you live in state you can call a week ahead of time and get a time that way (first come first served, 516 249 0707. Or if out of state I think you, can call 3 days in advance and try to get a cancelation I think you need to call ahead of trying to get the times to register with the system).

SM