Liability on the Links
On August 13, 2009, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the latest in a long line of cases addressing legal liability for injuries on the golf course.
Facts of the Case
In the summer of 2007, Zeidman was playing with Fisher in a charity golf outing at Springfield Country Club when a duck hook hit by Fisher struck Zeidman in the face and caused serious and permanent injuries. Just before the errant tee shot, Zeidman’s group was waiting on the tee box and had become concerned about the possibility of driving their balls into the foursome ahead of them while playing an uphill 301 yard par 4 hole. As a result, Zeidman, who conceded that he was incapable of driving his ball into the group, hit his tee shot and then, with the agreement of his playing partners, got into his golf cart and drove on the cart path over the crest of the hill to determine whether the group ahead of them had cleared off of the green so that the other players in the group, including Fisher, could safely tee off. Zeidman completed his reconnaissance mission and began his return trip on the golf cart path. As Zeidman reached a point about 75 to 100 yards from the tee, which was well within the line of site of the tee box, Fisher launched his ill-fated duck hook. Zeidman had not looked towards the tee box to see what his playing partners were doing but, instead, was focusing his attention on driving the cart. Because Zeidman intended to return to the tee box to report to his partners that the group ahead of them was out of harm’s way and because he never signaled that it was safe to tee off, he never entertained the possibility that Fisher would hit his tee shot. Fisher, in turn, acknowledged that he had clear view of Zeidman throughout his pre-shot preparation. Because Fisher noticed that the group ahead of them was driving golf carts away from the 17th green, he proceeded to hit his tee shot before Zeidman’s return.
The Court Decision
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Fisher, reasoning that Zeidman had assumed the risk of the activity of golfing, which included being struck in the face by Fisher’s ball. On review, the Superior Court analyzed the “no-duty rule” cases, which have generally held that when someone enters a business premises, discovers dangerous conditions which are both obvious and avoidable, and nevertheless proceeds voluntarily to encounter them, the doctrine of assumption of risk eliminates any legal liability. By voluntarily proceeding to encounter a known or obvious danger, the person is deemed to have agreed to accept the risk and to undertake to look out for himself. Because of this, the person assumes the risk of injury from obvious and avoidable dangers.
After reviewing the law, the Superior Court concluded that, under the circumstances relating to Fisher’s duck hook and Zeidman’s injuries, the no-duty rule did not apply. As Zeidman was returning from his forward observation mission, he did not consciously assume the risk of friendly fire. To the contrary, Zeidman had every right to anticipate that none of his playing partners would attempt a tee shot until his return to the tee box. This was not a situation in which Zeidman was confronted with a common, frequent or expected danger inherent in the game of golf. Rather, based upon the circumstances, Zeidman acted reasonably in assuming that his trip back to the tee box would be free from danger.
Ultimately, the Superior Court reversed summary judgment and directed that this matter proceed to trial. Presumably, after the opinion, Fisher was on notice that, in the future, he should either practice more diligently to eliminate his hook or study up on golf etiquette.
Judge Cleland aptly summed up the moral of the case as follows:
This case reminds us again of the utility of communication to prevent injury, even in the pastoral setting of a golf course and in the context of a game in which etiquette is as integral as skill.