You are here: / / IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT...

IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDIING IN A GOLF CART ON THE COURSE, BUT A GOLFER DRIVING A GOLF CART TO HER CAR IN THE COURSE PARKING LOT DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF A COLLISION WITH A CAR EXITING THE PARKING LOT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming one assumption-of-the-risk case and reversing the other, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined, in lawsuits against the owners of the golf courses, a golfer assumes the risk of being struck with a golf ball, but does not assume the risk of injury in a collision while driving a golf cart in the course parking lot:

This Court recently reaffirmed that the primary assumption of risk doctrine must be carefully circumscribed so as not to undermine the legislative comparative fault regime applicable to personal injury actions … . In these appeals, we clarify the scope of two important limitations on the doctrine: its inapplicability to unreasonably enhanced risks and its confinement to cases involving participation in athletics and recreation.

On the same day in June 2020, plaintiffs were injured in separate and very different accidents related to the sport of golf. Plaintiff David Katleski was struck by an errant golf ball while competing in a golf tournament. Plaintiff Mary E. Galante was struck by a car in the parking lot of a golf course before she began to play the course. For the reasons that follow, the primary assumption of risk doctrine precludes Katleski’s negligence claim because the risk of being struck by a mishit ball while golfing is inherent in the game and there is no evidence that the design of the course unreasonably enhanced that risk. Galante’s claim must be reinstated, however, because the primary assumption of risk doctrine has no application to a person who was not participating in a protected athletic or recreative activity at the time of their injury. Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02178, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: In lawsuits against the owners of golf courses: a golfer assumes the risk of being struck by an errant ball while riding in a golf cart on the course; but a golfer does not assume the risk of being struck by a car while driving a golf cart to her car in the course parking lot.

 

You might also like
THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A DIVORCE DOES NOT RENDER ONE FORMER SPOUSE THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF THE OTHER, THEREFORE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO DOCKETS A JUDGMENT DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITY PURSUANT TO CPLR 5203 OVER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED (CT APP).
Language of Collective Bargaining Agreements Entitled Retirees to the Same Health Benefits As Were In Effect at the Time of Retirement
Unclear Record Re: Whether Defense Counsel Was Apprised of the Complete Contents of a Jury-Request for Instructions Combined with the Judge’s Failure to Address One Aspect of the Request Constituted a “Mode of Proceedings” Error
STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).
DNA TEST RESULTS DEEMED TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY TRIGGERING DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE ANALYST(S) WITH FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF CRUCIAL STAGES OF THE ANALYSIS.
NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT PROHIBITED SMOKING IN SOME SMALL PARKS WITHIN NEW YORK CITY AND ON A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE 330,000-ACRE PARK SYSTEM.
County Court Was Not Required to Inquire Whether Defendant Wished to Seek New Counsel—Defendant’s Counsel of Choice Was Ill and County Court Ordered the Trial to Go Forward with Substitute Counsel (Selected by Defendant’s Counsel of Choice) After Denying Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment
Department of Homeless Services’ New Eligibility Procedure Triggered the Notice and Hearing Requirements of the City Administrative Procedure Act

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNLIKE A LEVEL-ONE OR LEVEL-TWO STREET STOP, A LEVEL-THREE STREET STOP JUSTIFIES... CIVIL COURT WHICH AWARDED RENT ARREARS IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE...