When injuries occur, the golf course can be held liable under negligence. Injuries on the golf course can result from being hit by an errand ball, injuries from golf carts and other injuries associated with the use of the golf course. A plaintiff who intends to bring a lawsuit against a golf course can rely on negligence in design or management.
Are golfers liable for accidents on the course?
UNIQUE ACCIDENTS ON THE GOLF COURSE Plaintiffs who are injured on the golf course face an uphill battle in trying to hold golfers, owners and designers liable.
Should there be a presumption of negligence for golfers who injure others?
A presumption of negligence should be created by state legislatures against golfers whose shots seriously injure people outside their golfing foursome. A golf course owner is held to an inadequately low standard of care to its patrons.
What is contributory negligence in a golf cart accident case?
Public golf courses are afforded the same governmental immunity for golf cart liability as they are for golf ball and golf club injuries. In golf cart accident cases, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence will often be raised as a defense to bar recovery.
Can a parent be held liable for negligence if a golf ball hits a child?
On appeal, the court stated that it was conceivable to hold a parent liable for negligence where their minor child was struck by an errant golf ball.
Are you liable if your golf ball hits someone?
Exceptions to Assuming the Risks of Golf The court did, however, recognize exceptions to that general rule. First, if a golfer deliberately hits someone with a golf ball, the golfer can be held liable (as the “assumption of risk” doctrine does not protect against intentional torts).
Who is at fault if a golf ball hits a house?
You break a window, you pay for it. The flip side of that coin is that homeowners should bear responsibility for golf ball damage since they assumed obvious risk by deciding to purchase a home near a golf course. Additionally, homeowner's insurance may handle the damage.
Are golfers responsible for broken windows?
While the golfer who broke your window should own up and take responsibility, she is not legally responsible for the damage if she was otherwise playing normally. Golfers need to take ordinary care when playing, but sometimes even the best golfers will hit a wild shot.
Who is at fault when a golf ball hits a car?
Often, out of moral obligation, the at-fault person who hit, kicked, or threw the ball will come forward and offer to pay for the damages or the deductible.
Are golfers liable for damage?
After researching the topic, I came to a fairly clear legal conclusion: A golfer is generally not liable for injuries or damages due to an errant shot by the golfer, except in situations in which the golfer is negligent, reckless, or acting with intent.
Does insurance cover golf ball damage?
“Since damage from golf balls is incredibly common, you have a few options, including coverage through your Progressive policy. If you were parked on the golf course's property, they may cover the damage. Some golf courses have liability insurance in place to help protect patron's property from damage.
Is a golfer liable for hitting a house in Florida?
Golfers or Golf Balls Trespassing on Florida Property Trespass is one of the oldest civil law claims. In order to claim a trespass, you must have warned the trespasser and asked them to stop, and there cannot be a valid reason for the trespasser's presence.
What happens if your golf ball breaks?
According to Rule 5-3, if a ball breaks into pieces as a result of the stroke, the stroke is cancelled and the golfer plays again, without penalty, from the original spot. A ball that's unfit for play (visibly cut, cracked or “out-of-round”) may be substituted mid-hole.
How do I protect my home from golf balls?
Plexiglass is kind of a do-it-yourself solution some golf course homeowners have decided best for them. With the Plexiglas, you can put sheets over your windows or doors. You can screw the plexiglass to the existing window frame to make it a complete solution that should block a golf ball from entering the home.
Can a golf ball go through a windshield?
So while a baseball or golf ball may have a huge impact on the vehicle, the ball will not actually break through the windshield. Other parts of the car, like a sunroof or a rear window, may not include the laminate but instead have tempered glass.
What happens if you hit someone with a golf ball UK?
If a golf ball has hit someone, the personal injury victim may be entitled to compensation. However, it does depend on the circumstances surrounding the case. For example, if the person in question did not check that the area was clear before striking the ball, they may be deemed liable.
Is a parent liable for damage caused by their child UK?
In England and Wales, parents or carers are not automatically liable for the personal injury, loss or damage that the child has caused. However, if a parent was negligent in, for instance, allowing the child's actions that caused harm or injury, or for failing to prevent the incident – the parent could be held liable.
Who is responsible for an errant golf shot?
The big question is who's liable to pay for those damages: the homeowner, the golf course or neither. It's called errant golf ball liability when a stray golf ball hits someone's window or causes other damages unintentionally.
What happens if you get hit with a golf ball?
When a golf ball is hit, it compresses. Depending on the speed at which it is hit, the golf ball can compress incredibly small compared to its original size. When a golf ball lands, it also compresses again, but not nearly as much. If a golf ball travels at you, when it hits you, it will yet again compress.
Who is responsible for damage caused by a golf ball in Florida?
Who is Liable if a Golf Ball Causes Damage? Another general concern is damage that may be done by errant golf balls. Generally speaking, the golf club, the builder, and the course designer are usually protected from liability from golf ball damage in the same documents described above.
Who is liable for golf ball damage Australia?
"There are two parties liable for the damage in this situation. Firstly, there is the actual golfer who caused the damage - if they can be identified. But secondly, the person or body who allows the nuisance to occur from their neighbouring property is also liable. That means the golf club."
What is a golf course injury?
A. Negligence of Golfer Striking Ball. The most common golf course injuries are those that involve players. Case law suggests that injured plaintiffs often sue to recover for injuries sustained from getting hit in the eye by an errant golf ball.
Why was the course operator not liable for the golfer's shot?
In this case, the course operator was not liable because the golfer’s shot was deemed negligent. Furthermore, the course owner’s duty to protect young children from dangers inherent to the game of golf did not include protection from injury by a negligently hit ball. B. Spectator Injuries at Golf Tournaments.
What insurance do you need for a golf cart accident?
A golfer injured in a golf cart accident may look to the defendant cart driver’s automobile liability policy and homeowner’s insurance policy as a method of recovering damages for an injury. Additionally, the injured plaintiff may be able to recover from the golf course owner’s general liability insurance policy which covers bodily injuries or property damages. Florida appears to have the most recently reported case law dealing with the issue of insurance and golf cart accidents. One reason may be that the Florida courts have construed golf carts to fall within the dangerous instrumentality doctrine after the Florida legislature classified a golf cart as a motor vehicle. Thus, plaintiffs have argued that a golf cart is regulated by the motor vehicle insurance laws requiring the lessor of a motor vehicle to provide primary insurance coverage in the event of an accident.
What is the case about an adult golfer's duty toward a minor golfer?
The leading case dealing with an adult golfer’s duty toward a minor golfer on the golf course is Outlaw v. Bituminous Insurance Co. In Outlaw, an adult golfer was playing behind a nine year-old golfer. The adult golfer stepped up to the tee on a hole in which the minor golfer was already in the process of playing. The nine year-old was about sixty yards away from the tee and slightly to the left of the intended drive line of the defendant adult golfer. The minor golfer waved the adult golfer to play through and thus, was aware of and consented to the impending drive. The minor crouched behind his golf bag for protection. The adult golfer drove his tee shot, and it went directly at the minor golfer. The minor golfer raised his head above the bag to locate the ball and was struck in the eye destroying his sight. The general rule of law established in most jurisdictions would deny recovery in this situation because the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by consenting to the shot. However, the court found the defendant liable for negligence in hitting the ball even though the plaintiff was aware of the shot and received a warning. The court based its rationale on the fact that “young people possess limited judgment and are likely at times to forget dangers and behave thoughtlessly.” The jury in Outlaw also found the parent of the minor child negligent for allowing a “too young child” to subject himself to the inherent dangers of a golf course. On appeal, the court stated that it was conceivable to hold a parent liable for negligence where their minor child was struck by an errant golf ball. However, just as a golfer never assumes the risk of a negligently hit golf ball, the appellate court found that the parent also could not be liable for injuries sustained by their minor children as a result of another golfer’s negligence. The court also stated that a golf course operator could be liable for allowing children who were too young on the golf course because of the inherent danger but only in cases where the injuries sustained were not the result of another’s negligence. In this case, the course operator was not liable because the golfer’s shot was deemed negligent. Furthermore, the course owner’s duty to protect young children from dangers inherent to the game of golf did not include protection from injury by a negligently hit ball.
What happened in Brady v. Kane?
Kane held that a golfer, who was a member of a golf foursome, was negligent when he took a practice swing while standing behind a fellow golfer in his foursome. The club struck the fellow golfer in the head while both golfers were waiting for another member of their foursome to tee off. The court held that the injured golfer had no reason to expect or anticipate someone taking a practice swing behind him and, therefore, did not assume the risk of injury for the player’s improper and unauthorized negligent swinging of the club.
What happens to spectators at golf tournaments?
Spectators are often injured at golf tournaments. Professionals and amateurs playing in golf tournaments must exercise the same duty of care as others who play the game of golf. Additionally, since golfing spectators know or should know that many shots go astray from the intended line of flight, the spectator assumes the risk of injury from the golfer. Case law suggests that even if a golfer fails to give an adequate warning after an errant shot, the plaintiff may have to show that she would have heard or heeded the warning. Spectators may have a better chance of recovering against the golf course owner or the sponsor of the golf tournament, since the owner or sponsor has a duty to provide minimal protection to spectators at a golf tournament. In most cases, courts hold that a jury question is raised as to whether seating was adequate and whether a warning by the golfer was necessary. However, some courts will resolve these issues on the pleadings when the facts are not in dispute. Generally, spectators are held to have assumed the risk of injury against owners and promoters. However, the assumption of the risk doctrine does not always act as a complete bar to recovery since spectators, like golfers, never assume the risk of the defendant’s negligent conduct. In general, courts apply the same standard for protecting spectators in other sporting events.
What happened in Rinaldo v. McGovern?
McGovern, involving a passing motorist driving by the golf course on a public highway, the golfer was not liable to the motorist when his drive soared off the golf course, traveled through or over a screen of trees and smashed into the plaintiff’s windshield causing serious injury.
What are the risks of playing golf?
While the game of golf may seem safe and tame, in reality, there are many chances for accident or injury to occur. Some of the potential accidents you might encounter include: 1 Tripping over landscaping 2 Slipping due to improper course maintenance 3 Golf cart accidents 4 Being struck by a ball or another player 5 Lightning strike
What Type of Accidents Happen at a Golf Course?
While the game of golf may seem safe and tame, in reality, there are many chances for accident or injury to occur. Some of the potential accidents you might encounter include:
What are the injuries that can happen in a golf cart?
Lightning strike. These are just a few of the ways you could be injured. Injuries could vary and include things such as broken bones, concussions or other head injuries, sprained ankles and even more serious problems.
What is an example of an accident?
One example of such an accident occurred in Avon, Ohio. A teen was playing golf with friends when a shot ricocheted off a golf cart and hit him in the head. He wound up with a concussion and a skull injury, but due to his friends getting him prompt medical attention and excellent care from the hospital he was able to recover fully.
Why is it important to investigate an accident?
In any event, it is important that the accident is thoroughly investigated to make sure the person or company at fault is determined and the next steps can be taken.
What happens if you overdo it while playing golf?
Also, if you trip and fall over a branch on the course, but are found to be intoxicated, you may not be able to recover the same damages as you would if you were sober. Every case is different.
Who is at fault for a golf course accident?
It can be very tricky to decide who is at fault in a golf course accident. There can be several different people or groups that contribute to an accident. It will be important to study the case and figure out if the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the park owner, or course manager. Other accidents could be caused due to mechanical failure—such as an accident that occurs on a golf card. In some cases, an accident may be the fault of another player on the course, such if you are struck by a ball when the other player wasn’t following course rules.
What happens if a golfer hits a golf ball?
If a player hits (or throws) a golf ball deliberately in a direction that could cause harm, even if their goal was not to cause harm, they are liable for injuries that result from that action.
Who is liable for any injuries caused by defying safety protocols?
A golfer who tees off before the fairway is clear or who fails to shout is thus liable for any injuries they cause by defying safety protocols.
What is reckless straying from the game?
Each may have a different favorite club or type of swing, but the rules are the same. Activities outside those defined by the game that results in injury can be deemed reckless straying from the game. Therefore, these activities fall outside the assumed risk of the sport.
Can a golf club injury be liable?
Golf club injuries may be considered liable even if they occur during normal play.
Is roughhousing a part of golf?
Horseplay and roughhousing are never part of the intended conduct of golf. Any injury that is the result of roughhousing or horseplay is subject to personal liability laws.
Can golf players sue one another?
When participants play in a shared sport, they legally accept the assumed risks of the activity. Golf players cannot sue one another for things that happen in the natural course of the game.
Is a golf course liable for spectators?
In most cases, the golf course is liable for ensuring that spectators at an event are aware of where they can safely stand or sit to watch. Spectators who leave the designated safe areas, however, may waive the venue’s liability.
What is liability on a golf course?
Liability on the golf course can con- veniently be divided into three principal subjects. First, there is liability for injuries to employees, which generally involves the law of workers' compen- sation. Second, there is liability for injuries to golfers and others, which implicates the law of tort liability for personal injuries. Finally, of increasing prominence is the law governing lia- bility for chemical damage to the course, which can best be described as tort liability for property damage. Liability to Employees: The Law of Workers' Compensation Anyone who suffers an injury is ordinarily entitled to recover damages for the injury if it was caused by the negligent conduct of another. Negligent conduct is that which falls below what we expect people to do in a given circumstance, such as to obey traffic
What is the law of tort?
This is part of the law of tort, which is dis- cussed more fully below. An employee who is injured on the job as a result of the negligence of his employer or a fellow employee is ordinarily not allowed to sue them for damages. In other words, the employer and fellow employees are immune from damages under the law of tort. Instead, the employee is limited to recovering benefits provided by state statutes. These benefits are called workers' or workmen's compensation benefits. Typically, all medical expenses are paid by the compensation insurer, and an employee who misses work receives additional weekly benefits that approxi- mate a fraction of his average weekly wage, usually either2/3or3/4. He does not receive any damages for pain and suffering. In return, the employee is not re- quired to show that his injury was caused by the negligence of another. He is entitled to workers' compensation benefits simply by showing he was in- jured on the job, regardless of whether the accident was anyone's fault. It is possible to have both legal remedies (tort and workers' compen- sation) apply to an accidental injury. For example, a grounds crew member may be seriously injured by the equip- ment he was operating. Because the injury occurred on the job, he would be entitled to workers' compensation bene- fits. However, he could not recover gen- eral damages from his employer, the club, or from any fellow employees
How to prove turf grass damage?
In order to prove the cause of turf- grass damage, expert opinion is often necessary. A superintendent himself may be qualified to offer that testimony, depending on his own education, train- ing, and work experience. Often, the club's attorneys may want to bring in a well-recognized expert in the field to evaluate conditions and to offer his own independent opinion. Itis important not to neglect this aspect of the case. Itis reasonably certain that the chemical company will have an expert who can be expected to testify that, based on his inspection of the problem, some local condition, other cause, or product misuse was responsible for killing the greens. Thus, it is vital that the club have an expert who can show that the chemical caused the damage. In addition, the club must show that it used the product in its normal or foreseeable manner. This is called label compliance, and it is the second line of defense for the chemical company, which may claim that the club misused or misapplied the product. Simply put, the club must show that the product was used in accordance with the directions that came with it, which in most cases is required to be on the label of the container holding the product. This is simply a question of fact. To avoid application problems, only the superintendent or his assistant should mix or dilute chemicals. Leaving the mixing to an inexperienced worker invites problems. A log should be kept showing what was done - how the chemical was mixed or diluted. Another worker should witness the mixing or dilution, and both the mixer and the witness should date and sign the log. This provides persuasive evidence as to what was done in applying the chemical. In the event of problems, the log is a convenient record identifying indi- viduals who will provide testimony re- garding the application of the chemical. Itis also important that the container, with a small amount of the chemical sufficient for later testing, be kept until it is certain that no damage occurred from application. This kind of record has another important purpose. Itdocuments what the superintendent has done - and can exonerate him when an irate Green Committee Chairman wants to know why he poisoned the greens. Obviously, this essay can provide only an overview of the various legal issues that may confront golf course operations. The particular facts of each situation are critical. It is important, therefore, not to assume that a given situation will be controlled by the various rules discussed here. Addition- ally, the rules vary from state to state. For that reason, specific questions should be directed to an attorney in the club's jurisdiction.
What is attractive nuisance?
2d 20,77Cal. Rptr.914 (1969)]. There are frequent references in the cases on premises liability to what is called an attractive nuisance. This term refers to a dangerous condition that has an appearance that is inviting and may lure passersby to danger. The term origi- nated in swimming pool cases where the owner of a back yard swimming pool failed to erect a fence or other barrier to prevent curious children from being lured to the pool and exposed to the danger of drowning. Obviously, an analogy can be made to the ponds that exist on many golf courses. While it is not practical to fence in water hazards, clubs should have rules preventing any swimming in the water hazards by the members or their children and further should post warn- ing signs against trespassing at any point on the course's boundary where it is suspected that children or other in- truders gain entry. Such measures may prevent a tragic accident. Even if they do not, they may exonerate the course or club from civil liability in the event of a suit by showing that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the accident. The rules on premises liability have obvious consequences for golf course operators. Two common problems in- volve joggers and golf carts. Some courses permit joggers, some tolerate them, and some outlaw them altogether. One case in particular illus- trates the potential problems that can result when someone jogs along the golf course. In 1981,a club in New Orleans had a rule that allowed members to jog on the golf course, but only after dark so they would noCinterfere with the golfers. One member of the club, who lived next .to the course, liked to take advantage of this. One night he fell into an open drain while jogging. Although he was aware of the drain because of his familiarity with the course, he usually identified it by tall grass that sur- rounded it, forming a natural barrier of sorts. For some reason, the tall grass had been cut, and the jogger failed to recognize the drain hole. Although there were few objective medical findings to speak of, the jogger filed suit against the club and its insurer. Despite the fact that he unquestionably knew about the hole (he had even complained to club personnel prior to the accident that it had no cover), ajury found in his favor and awarded him $830,000. On appeal, the award was reduced to $693,500 for reasons not relevant here[Fritscherv. Chateau Golf
Who was liable for striking a nine year old in the eye?
v. Thibodeaux,477So. 2d245(Ls. App. 4th Cir.1985)]. However, one court has held that an adult golfer was liable for striking a nine-year-old child in the eye, blinding him, even though the child had consented to allow the adult golfer to play through but had remained only slightly out of the way. The court theorized that the adult was negligent in not making the child move to a safer place out of the zone of danger[Outlaw
Can an employee be liable for a golfer's negligence?
In fact, under the tort law of most states, an employer is automatically liable in damages for any negligence of an employee who injures a non-employee if the conduct in question arises during the course and scope of the employ- ment. Thus, any golfer injured on the course by a member of the grounds crew or other employees of the club may recover damages from the club if he can show that the employee was guilty of negligence that caused the injury. At the same time, the law also recog- nizes that, with respect to certain activi- ties, people assume the risk of being injured because of dangers associated with the activity. For example, baseball spectators are generally not allowed to recover for injuries when struck by a foul ball because that is part of the risk they assume in attending a baseball game. So it is with golf. Errant shots occur even among the best golfers in the world. No one would play the game if he were liable for any injury he might cause because his ball went in an unexpected direction. In legal terms, the assumption of risk is a complete defense to an action for damages because of negligence. Simply put, every golfer is considered to have assumed the risk of being injured by a poorly executed golf shot when he steps onto the course. At the same time, assumption of the risk does not apply to all situations: One may assume the risk that other golfers may strike errant shots, but that does not mean he assumes the risk that other golfers may fail to warn of the shot or fail to wait until the group ahead is past the intended landing area. By way of further illustration, one may assume the risk of being struck by a golf ball on the course, but he does not assume the risk of being struck by a limb falling from a tree being trimmed by the maintenance crew. Ifthe crew is negli- gent in not warning golfers that they are trimming overhead, they - and the club that employs them - may be liable in damages for any injury they cause. Tort liability for injuries caused by a defect in property is generally called premises liability. Simply put, anyone who owns or controls. property has a duty to keep the property free of hidden dangers that may injure those who come on the property. Itis difficult to generalize very much in this area, as the rules vary substantially from state to
When Assumption of The Risk Does Not Apply
Application of The Doctrine to Adjacent Property Owners and Spectators
- The assumption of the risk doctrine applies to those who voluntarily attend a golfing event as spectators, or even those who park in a parking lot next to a golf course. It also applies to those who live in homes adjacent to the golf course. This was confirmed by an Illinois Court concerning a woman who lived in a home bordering on a West Chicago golf course. The woman was garden…
Exceptions to The Assumption of The Risk Doctrine
- There may be exceptions to this rule if the plaintiff can prove that the golfer or golf club owner or operator was “grossly and recklessly” negligent. Some examples are: 1. The golfer was angry and intentionally slammed the ball into another person or threw the golf club and hit another person on the golf course. 2. The golfer was inebriated and ac...
I. Introduction
II. Golfers Hit by Errant Golf Balls
- A. Negligence of Golfer Striking Ball
The most common golf course injuries are those that involve players. Case law suggests that injured plaintiffs often sue to recover for injuries. That is when an errant golf ball hit the eye of the plaintiff. Negligence principles usually govern a civil action brought by an injured golfer. Actiona… - B. Negligence of Golf Course Owner
One alternative for the injured golfer is to look to the course owner for recovery. It is important to determine whether the golf course is privately or publicly owned. If the municipality owns the course, courts generally hold that the governmental entity is immune from liability for ordinary n…
III. Golfers Injured in Golf Club Accidents
- Many accidents on golf courses occur when a person swinging the golf club strikes and injures another member of his golf party. In this situation, the most obvious person to seek damages from is the golfer swinging the club. Liability suits arising out of golf club injuries are generally predicated on negligence coupled with golf etiquette and other rules of the game. Most cases in…
IV. Unique Accidents on The Golf Course
- Plaintiffs who are injured on the golf course face an uphill battle in trying to hold golfers, owners and designers liable. Not only must they affirmatively show that the defendant’s actions were negligent, but they must also overcome the defense of contributory negligence or assumption of the risk or injury by voluntarily participating in the game of golf. There are, however, unique or un…
v. Golf Cart Accidents
- A. Liability of Negligent Cart Driver
People or entities may be civilly liable for personal injuries arising from the operation of a power golf cart. Recovery under various theories of liability including negligence, breach of warranty and strict products liability may be possible. For example, against the driver of the cart, the lessor, th… - B. Liability of Golf Course Owner and Lessor of Cart
The course owner and lessor of the golf cart may be liable for negligence in golf cart accident cases. A negligence theory will usually be premised on the golf course owner’s duty to maintain the golf course in a reasonably safe condition. The course owner may also be liable for failure t…
VI. Analysis
- Injuries incurred on the golf course, whether the result of errant golf shots, golf club mishaps or golf cart accidents, may be and often are severe. Golf cart and golf club injuries do not seem to offend our notion of fairness with respect to an injured plaintiff’s ability to recover damages. For golf club injuries, a defendant golfer has control over where, when and at what speed the club is …
VII. Conclusion
- Courts should follow the Bartlett holding and expand a golfer’s duty toward other golfers on the golf course. State legislatures against golfers should create a presumption of negligence; whose shots seriously injure people outside their golfing foursome. A golf course owner is held to an inadequately low standard of care to its patrons. By providing insurance for only the most seriou…