Rinaldo v. McGovern, 78 N.Y.2d 729 (1991)
r
r
A golfer is not liable for negligence when a poorly hit shot veers off course and causes injury, absent evidence of a failure to exercise due care beyond simply mishitting the ball.
r
r
Summary
r
This case addresses the liability of a golfer whose errant shot injured a passing motorist. The New York Court of Appeals held that the golfer was not liable for negligence. The plaintiffs were injured when a golf ball, sliced off course by the defendant, struck their car windshield. The court reasoned that the risk of a mishit ball is inherent in the game of golf and that the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendant acted without due care. The court emphasized that even skilled golfers can mishit a shot and that a golfer is not automatically liable simply because a ball does not travel in the intended direction. Therefore, a negligence claim requires demonstrating a failure to take reasonable steps to minimize harm, not simply the inherent risk of the game.
r
r
Facts
r
The plaintiffs were driving their car on a public road adjacent to a golf course.
r
The defendant, while teeing off on the eleventh hole, sliced his golf ball, causing it to veer off course.
r
The errant golf ball traveled through or over a screen of trees and struck the plaintiffs’ windshield.
r
Plaintiff Roberta Rinaldo sustained injuries as a result of the broken windshield.
r
There was no evidence that the defendant acted carelessly or intentionally drove the ball off course; he simply mishit the shot.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The plaintiffs sued the defendant golfer for negligence and failure to warn.
r
The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims.
r
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision.
r
The plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a golfer who unintentionally slices a golf ball off the course and onto a public road, causing injury, is liable for negligence absent proof of a failure to exercise due care beyond simply mishitting the ball?
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the risk of a mishit golf ball is inherent in the game, and the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the defendant’s actions demonstrated a lack of due care that unreasonably increased the risk of harm.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the golfer was not liable for negligence. The court reasoned that the possibility of a mishit ball is a risk inherent in the game of golf, quoting Jenks v. McGranaghan, ” ‘even the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional