The Indiana Supreme Court travels to Bloomington Monday to hear arguments in the case of a teenage girl who was injured by
a golf ball while driving the beverage cart at a golf outing.
Arguments begin at noon in the Moot Courtroom at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 211 S. Indiana Ave., for Cassie
E. Pfenning v. Joseph Lineman, et al., No. 27S02-1006-CV-331. Cassie Pfenning was 16 years old when she attended a golf
scramble with her grandfather, Jerry Jones, to work a beverage golf cart. Jones ended up playing in the scramble, so he left
Pfenning in the care of his sister. The two were in the golf cart without a roof or windshield when Joseph Lineman's golf
ball flew more than 70 yards before hitting Pfenning in the mouth, causing severe injuries to her teeth, mouth, and jaw.
Judges Carr Darden and Melissa May affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, which included the club, promoters, and
Pfenning’s grandfather, ruling that the defendants didn’t have a duty to protect the teen from injury; weren’t
negligent in their supervision of her; and there wasn’t a breach of duty of reasonable care under premises liability.
The majority also 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.
Judge James Kirsch dissented because he believed that since Pfenning was on the property as a business invitee, the golf
club had a duty of care; he also found her grandfather owed her a duty of reasonable care because she was entrusted into his
care during the tournament. Judge Kirsch declined to extend the ruling in Geiersbach to include the facts of this
case.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.