Question:

Everytime I step onto a course I accept and realize that I could be injured. People make mistakes and errors in their swing and accidents do happen. Balls do fly over and bounce off tree’s. People do hit Hooks and slices. Now if it is neglagence that injurned me then you will hear from my lawyer. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All: In a discussion a few weeks ago, there was comment about the potential liability to a golfer whose shot strikes and injures another person. In the discussion, there was some indication that the golfer was not liable for such injuries.  In the latest issue of Golf Digest, there is a short segment in which a purported golf organization spokesperson states that generally there is no such liability, and that such matters are generally taken care of on the course. Such statements are, IMHO, disingenuous at best and irresponsible at worst.  The issue of a golfer’s liability for injuries to others is complex, but it is quite clear that A GOLFER CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED TO OTHERS BY HIS SHOT.  The existence or extent of such liability is often a matter of fact, and the facts can make the case go either way. For a more complete reference, you might refer to: AMERICAN LAW REPORTS ANNOTATED. LIABILITY TO ONE STRUCK BY GOLF BALL David M. Holliday, J.D.  53 A.L.R.4th 282 First of all, the laws in different jurisdictions vary, so there is no single statement of "the law" that will encompass all situations.  In the event of any question, one should consult the law of his/her state to find out what the governing principles are for that state. Basically, however, the determination of whether a golfer is liable for injury or damage caused by his/her shot depends on whether the golfer will be held to be negligent.  (Note that it is also possible that the golf club/course itself might also be held liable in some instances.) This concept of negligence is set out in the introduction to the annotation cited above: It is established that the mere fact that a person is struck by a golf ball driven by one playing a game of golf does not constitute proof of negligence on the part of the golfer who hit the ball, and that a golfer is only required to exercise ordinary care for the safety of persons reasonably within the range of danger of being struck by the ball. The annotation then points out that a golfer much give an adequate and timely warning to those who may be unaware of his intention to hit and who might be endangered by the shot. This group might include those who are not actually players on the course.  For example, the annotation continues: "Similarly, liability has been held to have been established or supportable where a caddie at a private golf course was struck by a ball hit by a member of the group for which he was caddying, by a member in another group, or while the caddie was shagging balls on a practice fairway. It has also been held that a golfer whose shot struck a greenskeeper who was watering the grounds at a private golf course was liable for the resulting injuries. "…  a spectator at a tournament or exhibition could recover for injuries sustained as a result of being struck by a golf ball. In one case, the court held that a golfer whose shot struck another golfer playing in a different group at a husband and wife golf tournament could be held liable for the golfer’s injuries. In other cases, it has been held that liability could be imposed on the proprietor of a golf course and the sponsor of a tournament or exhibition at the course, as well as a golfer, for injuries sustained by a spectator as a result In the annotation, of course, there are numerous references to situations where liability was not found, because the actions of the golfer were held not to be negligent.  I have not included them because I merely wish to make the point that it is overly simplistic to think that a golfer will not be held liable for injuries resulting from shots that result in injury or damage. The law is clear that there can be such liability. It also seems that the issue of liability will be highly fact-specific, and will depend on the law of a given jurisdiction.  I have also greatly simplified the facts of some of the following cases for the same reason, and to keep this posting a bit shorter than it otherwise would be. Just for further information, and perhaps a bit of humor, here are excerpts from a few other cases where liability was found.  (Given my own propensity for being, in the most charitable view, erratic, some of them hit home!!!     ) Cook v Johnston (1984, App) 141 Ariz 589, 688 P2d 215.  A bystander was struck by a ball when he was about 30 yards from the line to the fairway.  Reason, there was evidence that the golfer had a propensity to shank his golf shot, and so he had a duty to inform the bystander of his tendency to shank.  His failure to warn was held negligent. In a much older Virginia case, Alexander v Wrenn (1932) 158 Va 486, The golfer was a "wild and erratic player" and knew that a golf ball driven by him was liable to fly at almost any angle.  The injured person was another golfer searching for his ball in the rough. In addition, in this case, the golfer evidently yelled "fore", but apparently the person searching the rough did not hear it. The golfer was held liable. In another case, Westborough Country Club v Palmer (1953, CA8 Mo) 204 F2d 143 (applying Missouri law), a golfer was liable when his shot struck a motorist on a private road traversing a golf course fairway. Also, in a 1972 California case, Curran v Green Hills Country Club (1972, 1st Dist) 24 Cal App 3d 501, 101 Cal Rptr 158, the court held that the owner of a residence adjacent to a golf course did not assume the risk of being struck by a golf ball while in his backyard swimming pool, since he did not know that there were any golfers on the course in the vicinity of his home at the time of the accident.  The golfer was liable. With regard to one’s yelling "fore," one might check in Allen v Pinewood Country Club, Inc. (1974, La App 1st Cir) 292 So 2d 786.  A golfer was held liable for injuries to another golfer in the same foursome.  The golfer had yelled "fore" but the other’s back was turned, and the golfer did not "first ascertain that his warning was heeded."  The court said that the defendant was negligent in failing to ascertain that his warning was heeded and failing to allow the plaintiff time to step aside before striking his ball, reasoning that this was the equivalent of no warning at all. In another situation a golfer had hit his first ball into the rough. Another member of his foursome was helping search for the ball in the woods when the golfer found his ball and "without warning" played his second shot.  It curved to the left and struck the one who was still searching. In still another case, a golfer was held liable for damages when his ball hit the head of the wife (W) of another golfer.  W was on the 17th hole, and had left the fairway to help her husband find his ball.  She was looking in the rough of the 14th hole.  The golfer teed off from the 14th hole and the ball struck W.  Quoting from the ALR report of the case: Pointing out that a person about to strike a golf ball  must use ordinary care to warn those within the range of the intended flight or the general direction of the drive, the court said that the plaintiff’s evidence that his wife was in a position where she had a right to be, that she was within the range of an intended drive from the 14th tee, that the defendant golfer saw or could have seen her, that she was unaware that a ball would be driven from the tee at that time, and that the defendant golfer failed to warn her that she was going to drive, was sufficient to create a jury question.

Response:

All: In a discussion a few weeks ago, there was comment about the potential liability to a golfer whose shot strikes and injures another person. In the discussion, there was some indication that the golfer was not liable for such injuries.  In the latest issue of Golf Digest, there is a short segment in which a purported golf organization spokesperson states that generally there is no such liability, and that such matters are generally taken care of on the course. Such statements are, IMHO, disingenuous at best and irresponsible at worst.  The issue of a golfer’s liability for injuries to others is complex, but it is quite clear that A GOLFER CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED TO OTHERS BY HIS SHOT.  The existence or extent of such liability is often a matter of fact, and the facts can make the case go either way. For a more complete reference, you might refer to: AMERICAN LAW REPORTS ANNOTATED. LIABILITY TO ONE STRUCK BY GOLF BALL David M. Holliday, J.D.  53 A.L.R.4th 282 First of all, the laws in different jurisdictions vary, so there is no single statement of "the law" that will encompass all situations.  In the event of any question, one should consult the law of his/her state to find out what the governing principles are for that state. Basically, however, the determination of whether a golfer is liable for injury or damage caused by his/her shot depends on whether the golfer will be held to be negligent.  (Note that it is also possible that the golf club/course itself might also be held liable in some instances.) This concept of negligence is set out in the introduction to the annotation cited above: It is established that the mere fact that a person is struck by a golf ball driven by one playing a game of golf does not constitute proof of negligence on the part of the golfer who hit the ball, and that a golfer is only required to exercise ordinary care for the safety of persons reasonably within the range of danger of being struck by the ball. The annotation then points out that a golfer much give an adequate and timely warning to those who may be unaware of his intention to hit and who might be endangered by the shot. This group might include those who are not actually players on the course.  For example, the annotation continues: "Similarly, liability has been held to have been established or supportable where a caddie at a private golf course was struck by a ball hit by a member of the group for which he was caddying, by a member in another group, or while the caddie was shagging balls on a practice fairway. It has also been held that a golfer whose shot struck a greenskeeper who was watering the grounds at a private golf course was liable for the resulting injuries. "…  a spectator at a tournament or exhibition could recover for injuries sustained as a result of being struck by a golf ball. In one case, the court held that a golfer whose shot struck another golfer playing in a different group at a husband and wife golf tournament could be held liable for the golfer’s injuries. In other cases, it has been held that liability could be imposed on the proprietor of a golf course and the sponsor of a tournament or exhibition at the course, as well as a golfer, for injuries sustained by a spectator as a result In the annotation, of course, there are numerous references to situations where liability was not found, because the actions of the golfer were held not to be negligent.  I have not included them because I merely wish to make the point that it is overly simplistic to think that a golfer will not be held liable for injuries resulting from shots that result in injury or damage. The law is clear that there can be such liability. It also seems that the issue of liability will be highly fact-specific, and will depend on the law of a given jurisdiction.  I have also greatly simplified the facts of some of the following cases for the same reason, and to keep this posting a bit shorter than it otherwise would be. Just for further information, and perhaps a bit of humor, here are excerpts from a few other cases where liability was found.  (Given my own propensity for being, in the most charitable view, erratic, some of them hit home!!!     ) Cook v Johnston (1984, App) 141 Ariz 589, 688 P2d 215.  A bystander was struck by a ball when he was about 30 yards from the line to the fairway.  Reason, there was evidence that the golfer had a propensity to shank his golf shot, and so he had a duty to inform the bystander of his tendency to shank.  His failure to warn was held negligent. In a much older Virginia case, Alexander v Wrenn (1932) 158 Va 486, The golfer was a "wild and erratic player" and knew that a golf ball driven by him was liable to fly at almost any angle.  The injured person was another golfer searching for his ball in the rough. In addition, in this case, the golfer evidently yelled "fore", but apparently the person searching the rough did not hear it. The golfer was held liable. In another case, Westborough Country Club v Palmer (1953, CA8 Mo) 204 F2d 143 (applying Missouri law), a golfer was liable when his shot struck a motorist on a private road traversing a golf course fairway. Also, in a 1972 California case, Curran v Green Hills Country Club (1972, 1st Dist) 24 Cal App 3d 501, 101 Cal Rptr 158, the court held that the owner of a residence adjacent to a golf course did not assume the risk of being struck by a golf ball while in his backyard swimming pool, since he did not know that there were any golfers on the course in the vicinity of his home at the time of the accident.  The golfer was liable. With regard to one’s yelling "fore," one might check in Allen v Pinewood Country Club, Inc. (1974, La App 1st Cir) 292 So 2d 786.  A golfer was held liable for injuries to another golfer in the same foursome.  The golfer had yelled "fore" but the other’s back was turned, and the golfer did not "first ascertain that his warning was heeded."  The court said that the defendant was negligent in failing to ascertain that his warning was heeded and failing to allow the plaintiff time to step aside before striking his ball, reasoning that this was the equivalent of no warning at all. In another situation a golfer had hit his first ball into the rough. Another member of his foursome was helping search for the ball in the woods when the golfer found his ball and "without warning" played his second shot.  It curved to the left and struck the one who was still searching. In still another case, a golfer was held liable for damages when his ball hit the head of the wife (W) of another golfer.  W was on the 17th hole, and had left the fairway to help her husband find his ball.  She was looking in the rough of the 14th hole.  The golfer teed off from the 14th hole and the ball struck W.  Quoting from the ALR report of the case: Pointing out that a person about to strike a golf ball  must use ordinary care to warn those within the range of the intended flight or the general direction of the drive, the court said that the plaintiff’s evidence that his wife was in a position where she had a right to be, that she was within the range of an intended drive from the 14th tee, that the defendant golfer saw or could have seen her, that she was unaware that a ball would be driven from the tee at that time, and that the defendant golfer failed to warn her that she was going to drive, was sufficient to create a jury question.

Response: