ILNews

Justices decide golf ball injury case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Taking a swing at an issue of first impression, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled on a golf ball injury case and rejected the concept that a sporting event participant owes no duty of care to protect others from inherent risks of the sport in all situations.

Instead, the five justices had adopted the view that summary judgment is appropriate in those cases where a sports participant is acting within the range of ordinary behavior and whatever injury occurs isn’t because of unreasonable conduct.

The unanimous ruling came May 18 in the case of Cassie E. Pfenning v. Joseph E. Lineman, et. al., No. 27S02-1006-CV-331, from Grant County.

The case stems from an August 2006 golf outing Pfenning was attending with her grandfather. The grandfather, Jerry A. Jones, was participating in the golf scramble and left his granddaughter, and the teenager ended up driving a beverage cart around the course – a cart without a roof or windshield. At one point, golfer Joseph Lineman’s errant golf ball flew 70 yards from the tee and hit Pfenning, who was age 16 at the time, in the mouth, causing severe injuries to her teeth, mouth, and jaw. She sued the golfer who’d hit the ball, the bar that sponsored the event, the Elks country club that hosted the tournament, and her now-deceased grandfather who invited her to go along but hadn’t warned her of the potential dangers.

Grant Superior Judge Jeffrey Todd decided in favor of all the defendants before the scheduled trial, and on appeal a two-judge Indiana Court of Appeals majority upheld the trial court judge’s ruling, holding most significantly that no duty of care exists from one participant in a sports activity to another to prevent injuries resulting from inherent risks of the sport itself. The majority extended the definition of “participants” from Geiersbach v. Frieje, 807 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), to include not only players, coaches, or players on the bench during the game, but also sporting event volunteers. Because the majority considered her a participant in the golf scramble, which had inherent risks, they ruled the defendants didn't owe her a duty. They also failed to find Lineman reckless for his golf ball hitting Pfenning.

Only Judge James Kirsch dissented, agreeing that he would have granted summary judgment for Lineman but disagreeing with his colleagues on the other issues because the circumstances of the case led to some of the defendants having a duty.

The Supreme Court heard arguments last year and Justice Brent Dickson wrote this 23-page opinion, which the court said is aimed at clarifying a line of varying and inconsistent rationales from the intermediate appellate court through the years on this issue of sports’ participant duty of care. The justices turned to precedent from several other states that have addressed this issue and looked to those no-duty, reduced-duty, or combination approaches.

“As to judicial policy, however, we are in agreement with our colleagues on the Court of Appeals and many of the courts of our fellow states that strong public policy considerations favor the encouragement of participation in athletic activities and the discouragement of excessive litigation of claims by persons who suffer injuries from participants’ conduct,” Justice Dickson wrote. “Athletic activity by its nature involves strenuous and often inexact and imprecise physical activity that may somewhat increase the normal risks attendant to the activities of ordinary life outside the sports arena, but this does not render unreasonable the ordinary conduct involved in such sporting activities.”

Sound judicial policy can be achieved within Indiana’s existing framework of state statute and jurisprudence, the court determined. Specifically, the justices concluded that only in sports injury cases a limited new rule should apply acknowledging that reasonableness may be found by the court as a matter of law. This is an approach taken by the Arizona courts on this type of issue.

In this case, the court found that Lineman’s errant drive that hit Pfenning is clearly within the range of ordinary behavior of golfers and doesn’t establish a breach of duty required for a negligent action. Justices also found that nothing shows the Elks should have reasonably expected invitees on the golf course to not realize the danger of wayward golf shots, and so summary judgment was appropriate for the club. But the justices found that the grandfather and bar sponsor weren’t entitled to summary judgment and those liability questions warrant trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Book 'm Dan O
    Now we must read our grandchildren their "rights" before we take them... Anywhere??? Big Macs kill we are told; therefore, Read 'em their rights before our kids sue us for endangering their children by buying them a burger. Book'm Dan O!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT