Jenks v. McGranaghan, 30 N.Y.2d 475 (1972)
A golfer only has a duty to give a timely warning to other persons within the foreseeable ambit of danger; there is generally no duty to warn persons not in the intended line of flight on another tee or fairway of an intention to drive.
Summary
Plaintiff, a golfer, was injured when struck by a golf ball driven by the defendant. The incident occurred on a golf course where the ninth tee was adjacent to the eighth fairway. Plaintiff argued the defendant was negligent in driving without warning. The Court of Appeals held that, given the distance and angle between the plaintiff and the intended line of flight, the defendant owed no duty to warn the plaintiff before hitting the ball. The court emphasized that a golfer cannot be expected to anticipate a player suddenly stepping into a zone of danger.
Facts
Plaintiff and defendant were playing golf at the Windsor Golf Course. The defendant was teeing off at the eighth tee, while the plaintiff was at the ninth tee, which was adjacent to the eighth fairway. The eighth hole was a straightaway, 195-yard par three, with the eighth green not visible from the eighth tee. The ninth tee was about 150 yards from the eighth tee and partially protected by a mesh wire fence. As defendant was teeing up, plaintiff walked from behind the protective screen to retrieve his golf bag. Defendant drove the ball, which hooked badly to the left, striking plaintiff in the eye and causing blindness. No advance warning was given before the shot, although members of the defendant’s group shouted “fore” as the ball started to hook, but the plaintiff did not hear it.
Procedural History
The trial court entered a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint finding the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and alternatively, set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that there was no evidence of the defendant’s negligence as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant was negligent in driving a golf ball from the eighth tee without advance warning to the plaintiff, who was near the ninth tee adjacent to the eighth fairway.
Holding
No, because the plaintiff was not within the foreseeable ambit of danger, given his distance from the intended line of flight and the presence of a protective fence.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that a golfer has a duty to give a timely warning to other persons within the foreseeable ambit of danger, citing Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311, 318. However, this duty does not extend to persons not in the intended line of flight on another tee or fairway. The court reasoned that even the best golfers can hit errant shots, and it would be unreasonable to require golfers to warn everyone within possible range of a misdirected ball. The court distinguished the facts from cases where the injured party was closer to the line of flight. In this case, the plaintiff was 150 yards away on another tee and approximately 25 yards from the intended line of flight. Further, the court noted that the plaintiff had been behind a protective fence when the defendant prepared to drive, and the defendant could not be expected to anticipate the plaintiff stepping into the danger zone at the last moment. The court emphasized that the relevant question is whether the defendant breached a duty to the plaintiff, and any breach of duty to others is immaterial, quoting Prosser, Torts. The court pointed out, “[E]ven the best professional golfers cannot avoid an occasional ‘ hook ’ or ‘ slice ’” (Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 Y 2d, at p. 319). Thus, the court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, holding that the defendant was not negligent as a matter of law. The court also noted that the golfers on the eighth green, if present, could not be seen from the eighth tee, thus negating any duty owed to them. The court held that any breach of duty to others not injured is immaterial, citing Prosser, Torts.