New York Law Review

Tag: Golf Course Liability

  • Jenks v. McGranaghan, 30 N.Y.2d 475 (1972): Duty to Warn Golfers of Errant Shots

    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.

  • Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311 (1970): Liability for Errant Golf Balls and Foreseeability

    Nussbaum v. Lacopo, 27 N.Y.2d 311 (1970)

    A property owner bordering a golf course assumes a certain level of risk from errant golf balls, and neither the golf course nor the golfer is liable for injuries resulting from an unforeseeable shot given the presence of a natural barrier and lack of prior notice of similar incidents.

    Summary

    Plaintiff, residing next to a golf course, was allegedly struck by a golf ball hit by defendant Lacopo, a trespasser on the course. The plaintiff sued both Lacopo and the country club, alleging negligence and nuisance. The court held that neither defendant was liable. The country club wasn’t liable because the shot was a collateral act by a trespasser, and the design of the course wasn’t a nuisance. Lacopo wasn’t liable because the shot was unforeseeable given the natural barrier of trees and rough between the fairway and the plaintiff’s property, and the plaintiff assumed some risk by living next to the course. The court emphasized that lack of notice, assumption of risk, and lack of foreseeability all contributed to the decision.

    Facts

    Plaintiff’s property abutted the 13th hole of the defendant country club. A 20-30 foot rough and 45-60 foot high trees separated the patio from the fairway. Defendant Lacopo, a trespasser, hit a bad shot that “hooked” and crossed over into plaintiff’s patio, allegedly hitting plaintiff. Lacopo did not shout “Fore!” The rough was dense and the trees were in full foliage at the time.

    Procedural History

    Plaintiff sued the golf club for nuisance and negligence in design and the golfer for failure to give a warning. The trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the country club was liable for the trespasser’s negligent act under a theory of nuisance or negligence in design.

    2. Whether the golfer was liable for failing to give a warning and for hitting a bad shot that injured the plaintiff.

    Holding

    1. No, because the shot was an abnormal departure from ordinary action constituting collateral negligence and the design of the course did not create a nuisance.

    2. No, because the risk was unforeseeable, the plaintiff assumed some risk by living next to the golf course, and the duty to warn did not extend to the plaintiff in this situation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the country club was not liable because the golfer was a trespasser, and the club could only be liable for risks inherent in the performance of an actor permitted to use the land, not for collateral negligence. The design of the golf course was not a nuisance because occasional errant golf balls do not constitute a substantial impairment of the plaintiff’s rights. One who chooses to reside on property abutting a golf course must accept the occasional, concomitant annoyances.

    Regarding the golfer’s liability, the court held that the shot was unforeseeable because of the dense rough and high trees separating the fairway from the plaintiff’s property. The court stated, “Under these circumstances the possibility of an accident could not be clear ‘to the ordinarily prudent eye.’” The court distinguished cases involving highways, where the risk is more foreseeable due to the lack of a significant barrier. The court also found that the duty to warn did not extend to the plaintiff, who lived so close to the golf course that he would likely ignore such warnings. Finally, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant failed to use due care in striking the ball.

    The court emphasized the plaintiff assumed a risk by residing next to a golf course. “Looking back from the alleged injury to the event, we consider it highly exceptional that a player’s conduct would have brought about harm.” The court concluded that to allow a jury to decide the issue would be to substitute surmise and speculation for reason.

    Quoting Campbell v. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568, 577: “To constitute a nuisance, the use must be such as to produce a tangible and appreciable injury to neighboring property, or such as to render its enjoyment especially uncomfortable or inconvenient.” Also, “Persons living in organized communities must suffer some damage, annoyance and inconvenience from each other. * * * If one lives in the city he must expect to suffer the dirt, smoke, noisome odors and confusion incident to city life.”