You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart...

Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart He Was Driving Tipped Over, Was Subject to More than the Normal Hazards Associated with Golfing

The Third Department determined there were triable issues of fact about whether the occupants of a golf cart were exposed to more than the usual hazards associated with golf.  The cart tipped over on an incline.  There was (disputed) evidence indicating wet leaves were on the ground and the tires of the cart were “bald:”

A person who chooses to participate in an athletic or recreational activity “‘consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation'” … . “[G]olfers are deemed to assume the risks of open topographical features of a golf course” …and they are “held to a common appreciation of the fact that there is a risk of injury from improperly used carts” … . Nevertheless, liability may be found where the participant proves “a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … .

Although plaintiff was an experienced golfer, he had not previously played on this particular course. He claimed that he was driving slowly and cautiously when the car simply slid out of control on wet leaves. Defendant acknowledged that the golf course path where the accident occurred was steep and winding. While defendant disputes the amount of wet leaves that plaintiff contends were on the path, it is uncontested that there were leaves present and that defendant’s employees had inspected the area earlier in the day. Significantly, plaintiff produced proof via the testimony of the person with whom he was golfing that, after the accident, he observed that the tires on the golf cart were “bald.” Rose v Tee-Bird Golf Club Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02481, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

You might also like
THE HISTORY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INFANT PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER STUDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ATTACK ON INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS FORESEEABLE FROM THE SCHOOL’S PERSPECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE CO-DEFENDANT POSSESSED A WEAPON, THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE CO-DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE THEORY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Investigate the Victim’s Medical Condition (Which Would Have Allowed More Effective Cross-Examination of the People’s Expert and the Victim), Failure to Object to Testimony Which May Have Been More Prejudicial than Probative (and which Clearly Required a Jury Instruction Limiting Its Use), and Failure to Object to Improper Comments Made by the Prosecutor, Deprived Defendant of Effective Assistance of Counsel
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT MADE A FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF HER INVOLVEMENT IN AN ONLINE BUSINESS WHILE SHE WAS RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS, SHE WAS FORTHRIGHT ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT WHEN QUESTIONED; PERMANENT DISQUALIFICATION FROM FUTURE BENEFITS WAS NOT WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
AMENDMENT OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATE ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET TO BE ENTITLED TO PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO CLAIMANT (SECOND DEPT).
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING OF NEGLECT ON MOTHER’S PART (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Code Provision Requiring Issuance of Rental Certificate by City Prior to Leasing... No Negligence Cause of Action Against Commissioner of Mental Health (Based Upon...