American Golf Corp. v. Superior Court
79 Cal.App. 4th 30; 93 Cal.Rptr.2d. 683 (March 2000)
Facts: Plaintiff Albert Becker was playing golf with his friend Stan Christopherson at the Lakewood Country Club, a golf course owned and operated by the defendant, American Golf Corporation. As the two, began play from the 13th tee; Christopherson’s golf ball landed in the rough. As Becker waited in the golf cart, Christopherson attempted to hit the ball back onto the main fairway. His shot, however, hit a wooden yardage marker and bounced toward Becker, hitting him in the eye. Becker than sued American Golf in superior court arguing that they had negligently designed the course by placing a rigid yardage marker so close to the fairway. American Golf petitioned the court to dismiss the case in its favor based on the defense to negligence as allowed under the doctrine of assumption of risk. The trial court denied American Golf court’s petition. American Golf then appealed the trial court’s decision arguing that it erred in not granting its motion to dismiss the case.
Issue(s): Did the trial court err in not granting American Golf’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of assumption of risk.
Decision: Yes, the trial court did err. It should have granted the American Golf’s motion and dismissed the case in their favor.
Reasoning: While American Golf did have a duty to protect golfers and other users of the golf course from unreasonable and foreseeable risks or dangerous conditions. However they had not violated their duty in this case. First, under the doctrine of assumption of risk, American Golf did not have duty to “use due care to eliminate risks inherent in a sport” if the plaintiff, like Becker, is a participant in the sport (American Golf Corp v. Superior Court, 2000). Second, a summary judgement should be granted when the answer to legal issue in question in controversy is conclusively in favor of the moving party.
Analysis: By playing golf, Becker assumed the risk that he might be injured by an errantly hit golf ball; which is what exactly happened. The fact that the ball hit the yardage marker is irrelevant. This is because yardage markers are an essential and necessary part of any golf course. Accordingly, there is always a possibility that an errantly hit golf ball might indeed hit a yardage marker. That is part of the assumption of risk in playing golf.
Works Cited
American Golf Corp. v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. App. 4th 30. Court of Appeals for the State of California. March 2000. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/79/30.html
