MISC/RANDOM/BS Golf Chatter Thread
08-05-2013
, 08:07 AM
08-05-2013
, 02:51 PM
I read a case about golf course negligence in law school and just looked up a few for kicks. Some are pretty interesting, with some funny language. In terms of liability, BO was essentially right: there's no liability for simply being bad and mi****ting a normal drive. Some folks might find it interesting that the vast majority of cases ignore the "it's your fault for living on a golf course" argument. Rather, they (rightfully) focus on the player's actions. In Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 N.Y.2d 729 (a New York state case) the court stated the issue as follows:
In short, the golfer wasn't negligent because "There [was] no evidence that either defendant was careless or guilty of anything other than making an inept tee shot." Thank God.
However, in some circumstances it doesn't look like it's too hard to get to a jury. In Hennessey v. Pyne, 694 A.2d 691 (a Rhode Island state case) the judge allowed the case to go to a jury on liability on the following facts:
Cutting dog legs seems like a pretty clear instance where if you're meaning to do it and hit a house, or a person, there is a good argument you are liable for damages. Here's an example that I think would be on the most obvious end of liability on the part of the golfer:
Hole is the 17th hole at my home course growing up. It's a short hole, and hitting it up the fairway with a 3-wood gets you a pretty short shot to a big green. Regardless, and because golfers like to man up and do "fun" shots, everyone (and especially the high school golfers I would play with) would cut the corner. The red X is the men's tee, and that tree that lines go through is smaller than it looks, and was smaller back when I was playing it. A good player could take the blue line approach, carry it 215-220, and bounce down to a really short shot. Move the blue line a little to the left and a long ball hitter can get right down next to the green if not on it (it's a downhill slope to the green).
Not-so-long ball hitters, and the crazies, take the less skilled approach: the yellow line. Aim the yellow line and hit the road and, given the curvature of things, there's a very, very good chance you bounce in, and a smaller but still possible chance you hit the green. It's about 210 to the end of the yellow line and that house.
Long story short, if at any time one of the yellow-line drives hit a house or a car I think there's a VERY good argument that the golfer would be liable for everything. To go to the extreme, if a ball hit on the yellow line went through a car windshield and driver went off the road, hit a telephone poll, and died, golfer would be responsible. Might be slightly closer with blue line, but I still think there's negligence. Golfer chose a flight path that went off the regular course of play. Of course, golfer could deny they were trying to do that, but there would be enough evidence that this is a common occurrence (and you could probably dig up witnesses to say that golfer would often try to cut the corner) that you could get to a jury.
Again, this example might be close to as clear as it can get. Still, I think anytime you make a conscious decision to aim a certain direction that isn't straight down the fairway and cause damage, there is a risk that you are legally liable.
Incidentally, I've seen hundreds of drives taking the yellow or blue path (mine included). TONS of hit houses, but only one broken window. No hit cars, although one did come close and the driver pulled over and yelled.
Quote:
Plaintiffs' cause of action based on the claimed negligence of the defendant golfer is similarly untenable. Although the object of the game of golf is to drive the ball as cleanly and directly as possible toward its ultimate intended goal (the hole), the possibility that the ball will fly off in another direction is a risk inherent in the game. Contrary to the view of the dissenters below, the presence of such a risk does not, by itself, import tort liability (see, 167 A.D.2d 942, 944, 561 N.Y.S.2d 1006 [Callahan, J.P., and Balio, J., dissenting] ). The essence of tort liability is the failure to take reasonable steps, where possible, to minimize the chance of harm. Thus, to establish liability in tort, there must be both the existence of a recognizable risk and some basis for concluding that the harm flowing from the consummation of that risk was reasonably preventable.
5 Since “ ‘even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional “hook” or “slice” ’ ” (Jenks v. McGranaghan, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 479, 334 N.Y.S.2d 641, 285 N.E.2d 876, quoting Nussbaum v. Lacopo, supra, 27 N.Y.2d at 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 265 N.E.2d 762), it cannot be said that the risk of a mi**** golf ball is a fully preventable occurrence. To the contrary, even with the utmost concentration and the “tedious preparation” that often accompanies a golfer's shot (see, Nussbaum v. Lacopo, supra, at 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 265 N.E.2d 762), there is no guarantee that the ball will be lofted onto the correct path. For that reason, we have held that the mere fact that a golf ball did not travel in the intended direction does not establish a viable negligence claim (Jenks v. McGranaghan, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 479, 334 N.Y.S.2d 641, 285 N.E.2d 876). To provide an actionable theory of liability, a person injured by a mi**** golf ball must affirmatively show that the golfer failed to exercise due care by adducing proof, for example, that the golfer “aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm” (Nussbaum v. Lacopo, supra, 27 N.Y.2d at 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 265 N.E.2d 762).
5 Since “ ‘even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional “hook” or “slice” ’ ” (Jenks v. McGranaghan, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 479, 334 N.Y.S.2d 641, 285 N.E.2d 876, quoting Nussbaum v. Lacopo, supra, 27 N.Y.2d at 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 265 N.E.2d 762), it cannot be said that the risk of a mi**** golf ball is a fully preventable occurrence. To the contrary, even with the utmost concentration and the “tedious preparation” that often accompanies a golfer's shot (see, Nussbaum v. Lacopo, supra, at 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 265 N.E.2d 762), there is no guarantee that the ball will be lofted onto the correct path. For that reason, we have held that the mere fact that a golf ball did not travel in the intended direction does not establish a viable negligence claim (Jenks v. McGranaghan, supra, 30 N.Y.2d at 479, 334 N.Y.S.2d 641, 285 N.E.2d 876). To provide an actionable theory of liability, a person injured by a mi**** golf ball must affirmatively show that the golfer failed to exercise due care by adducing proof, for example, that the golfer “aimed so inaccurately as to unreasonably increase the risk of harm” (Nussbaum v. Lacopo, supra, 27 N.Y.2d at 319, 317 N.Y.S.2d 347, 265 N.E.2d 762).
However, in some circumstances it doesn't look like it's too hard to get to a jury. In Hennessey v. Pyne, 694 A.2d 691 (a Rhode Island state case) the judge allowed the case to go to a jury on liability on the following facts:
Quote:
Although Hennessey did not see Pyne's tee shot and Pyne offered no explanation of his conduct in relation to how and where he hit the ball, the following circumstances raise material questions of fact concerning whether he breached his duty of reasonable care to Hennessey in the way he played this golf shot: Pyne's awareness of the existence and the proximity of Hennessey's condominium as being within striking distance of his tee shot (midway down the fairway in the crook of a slight dogleg left); his knowledge that the condominiums where Hennessey lived were regularly hit by golf balls; his consciousness of Hennessey's apparently ubiquitous and complaining presence on or near the course (referring to her as “a chronic nuisance to golfers here at Louisquisset”); and his appreciation of the golfing advantage to be gained on this dogleg hole if he drove the ball off the tee as closely as possible past Hennessey's condominium (without striking it), thereby maximizing the distance of his shot and the lie of his ball down the fairway.
Hole is the 17th hole at my home course growing up. It's a short hole, and hitting it up the fairway with a 3-wood gets you a pretty short shot to a big green. Regardless, and because golfers like to man up and do "fun" shots, everyone (and especially the high school golfers I would play with) would cut the corner. The red X is the men's tee, and that tree that lines go through is smaller than it looks, and was smaller back when I was playing it. A good player could take the blue line approach, carry it 215-220, and bounce down to a really short shot. Move the blue line a little to the left and a long ball hitter can get right down next to the green if not on it (it's a downhill slope to the green).
Not-so-long ball hitters, and the crazies, take the less skilled approach: the yellow line. Aim the yellow line and hit the road and, given the curvature of things, there's a very, very good chance you bounce in, and a smaller but still possible chance you hit the green. It's about 210 to the end of the yellow line and that house.
Long story short, if at any time one of the yellow-line drives hit a house or a car I think there's a VERY good argument that the golfer would be liable for everything. To go to the extreme, if a ball hit on the yellow line went through a car windshield and driver went off the road, hit a telephone poll, and died, golfer would be responsible. Might be slightly closer with blue line, but I still think there's negligence. Golfer chose a flight path that went off the regular course of play. Of course, golfer could deny they were trying to do that, but there would be enough evidence that this is a common occurrence (and you could probably dig up witnesses to say that golfer would often try to cut the corner) that you could get to a jury.
Again, this example might be close to as clear as it can get. Still, I think anytime you make a conscious decision to aim a certain direction that isn't straight down the fairway and cause damage, there is a risk that you are legally liable.
Incidentally, I've seen hundreds of drives taking the yellow or blue path (mine included). TONS of hit houses, but only one broken window. No hit cars, although one did come close and the driver pulled over and yelled.
08-05-2013
, 03:34 PM
08-05-2013
, 04:53 PM
08-05-2013
, 07:40 PM
08-05-2013
, 09:55 PM
08-06-2013
, 12:32 AM
08-06-2013
, 01:01 AM
08-06-2013
, 02:51 AM
08-06-2013
, 02:56 AM
08-06-2013
, 03:14 AM
08-06-2013
, 10:07 AM
08-06-2013
, 10:23 AM
08-06-2013
, 10:50 AM