Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Assumption of the Risk & Golf - Possible Exam Hypo

Here's a possible exam hypo:  Golfer hits a poor shot from the rough and the ball hits his partner, who is standing off to the side out of the intended line of flight, in the head.  Can the injured golfer sue for negligence?   A New York trial court ruled "no" holding that the injured golfer assumed the risk, and the appellate court affirmed holding that the injured golfer was not in the "foreseeable zone of danger."  The New York Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments today. 

More from the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.



| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Assumption of the Risk & Golf - Possible Exam Hypo:


The lower court said assumption of the risk, and the appellate court affirmed, saying he was NOT in the foreseeable zone of danger. That would seem to indicate they disagreed about assumption of the risk.

You left out an important fact that fixes this. The appellate court was ruling on the golfer's duty to yell "fore" when the a shot goes awry. There was no duty to warn when the other person was not in the zone of foreseeable danger.

Posted by: bl1y | Nov 16, 2010 7:13:01 AM

I criticized the lower court's opinion in this case back in April of 2009 in my blog. See here: http://bernabetorts.blogspot.com/2009/04/duty-while-playing-golf.html

In my opinion, New York has consistently bad deicisions on the issue of assumption of the risk as it relates to recreational activities. For example, see here: http://bernabetorts.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-york-court-gets-assumption-of-risk.html and here: http://bernabetorts.blogspot.com/2010/04/long-time-readers-of-this-blog-will.html

Please let me know what you think.

Posted by: Alberto Bernabe | Nov 16, 2010 9:49:23 AM

Post a comment