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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT